Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PETERBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

PRESTON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Geriatric Beds (Doncaster, Rotherham and Barnsley)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the present shortfall of geriatric beds in each of the Doncaster, Rotherham and Barnsley area health authority districts.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): The average daily number of geriatric beds available in Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham in the year ended 31 December 1979 was 245, 293 and 280 respectively, compared with an estimated requirement of 308, 362 and 315. I share the hon. Member's concern that there is a shortfall of 63 beds in Barnsley, 69 in Doncaster and 35 in Rotherham.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that the Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley area health authorities, pressurised by the consultants, are bringing forward schemes to ensure that the Montagu hospital, regardless of the effect on the patients in the area covered by that hospital, becomes a geriatric hospital? Will the Minister look into the matter, because of the grave effect that it will have on the people in the large area that is covered by the Montagu hospital who will suffer tremendously if the scheme that has been promoted by the consultants through the area health authorities is to be allowed?

Dr. Vaughan: I understand and share the hon. Member's concern about this matter. It has now been decided to keep the Montagu hospital as an acute general hospital. The hon. Gentleman's real concern was about the Fullerton hospital and the change to a geriatric function there. I shall certainly look into the matter. I am concerned that the facilities in that part of the country should be improved.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Does the Minister agree that my hon. Friend's real and genuine concern would be relieved somewhat if better financial provision were made for

geriatric rehabilitation, better community services and the full implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act in this respect?

Dr. Vaughan: One of our priorities has been to shift resources more towards geriatric care. A result has been the White Paper "Growing Older", and recently the "Care in Action" handbook. There has been a general improvement throughout the country in geriatric services care. Some of the figures given to us suggest that the number of acute beds for geriatrics is adequate. We are short in the part-way arrangements between acute hospital and fully at home services; that is why we are so keen on nursing homes provision in the National Health Service.

District General Hospitals

Mr. Conlan: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to make an announcement on the future size of district general hospitals.

Dr. Vaughan: We are still considering the comments received on the consultative document issued last year. My right hon. Friend or I will announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

Mr. Conlan: Does the Minister recall that he told me in January that he might be expected to make a statement by the end of March? Is he aware that the continuing delay is affecting the morale of hospital staff generally, particularly at the excellent acute psychiatric hospital of St. Mary's at Stannington? Will he take all possible steps to telescope further discussion and consultation so that a decision and an announcement can be made soon?

Dr. Vaughan: Yes, I am well aware that I wrote to the hon. Member saying that we hoped to reach conclusions in about two months. There have been more comments on the consultative document than we had expected —over 400. We are examining them as quickly as possible and we hope to be able to make an announcement within a short time. Meanwhile, I am aware of the anxieties of St. Mary's hospital, Stannington. If there are any steps that we can take to reassure the staff there I should like to discuss them with the hon. Member.

Mr. Dover: Will my hon. Friend try to incorporate in any announcement a statement on the casualty services that should be provided in district general hospitals, including details of the opening times?

Dr. Vaughan: Yes, that is one of the aspects that we are particularly considering. In many parts of the country it is on this aspect that the main anxieties of the local communities lie —the fear that they will not have adequate accident and emergency services near people's places of work. We are bearing that in mind.

Drugs

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the actual cost of drugs dispensed in England during the two-year period 1978 to 1980.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): £564 million in 1978–79 and £643 million in 1979–80. This does not include hospital dispensing.

Mr. Marks: Is not that a large increase when the number of prescriptions has been reduced? Is the right


hon. Gentleman satisfied that there has been no unnecessary inflation of drug prices? Will he perhaps restrict the increases in future to 6 per cent., just as he is restricting the pay rises of the health workers?

Mr. Jenkin: The prescription pricing scheme aims to maintain strict control over the level of prices and profitability of drugs supplied to the NHS. Of course, we keep the scheme under regular review, but at present, apart from minor changes, we are operating the scheme exactly as it has been operated over recent years. If the hon. Member has any suggestions for improving it I shall be happy to listen to them.

Mrs. Knight: What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure that expensive drugs are not wasted in NHS hospitals? Can he give the amount spent on drugs by hospitals?

Mr. Jenkin: I cannot answer the latter part of the question without notice. My hon. Friend is right in saying that it is of the utmost importance that pharmacists and doctors in hospitals should prescribe economically. Of course, the hospital drugs service is subject to the overall cash limit disciplines that apply to health authorities. There is, therefore, a built-in constraint that does not apply to the family practitioner services. I was also concerned —this was the pattern a short while ago —that because of the cash limit discipline out-patients were being asked to get drugs from their general practitioners rather than from the hospital pharmacy. Clearly that was just a method of evading the cash limit. We want to ensure that there is economical prescribing both in hospitals and in general practice.

Mr. Pavitt: Why have the Government rejected the advice of the British Medical Association on the revised British National Formulary to get rid of the hundreds of worthless drugs that are currently being prescribed? Will he consider establishing something like the MacGregor committee on the efficacy of drugs to operate in addition to the committee on the safety of medicines?

Mr. Jenkin: We have for the first time obtained the agreement of the BMA to make up an informal working group with my Department to examine effective prescribing. That represents a marked step by the doctors towards recognising the importance not only of economy in prescribing but of making sure that appropriate drugs are prescribed for and taken by patients. I therefore set considerable store by the move and I shall be reviewing the work of the working group at around the end of the year. I hope that it will lead to the more effective prescribing which all parties want.

Mr. Terry Davis: If the cost of drugs has increased by about 12 per cent., how does the Secretary of State justify the far bigger increase in prescription charges?

Mr. Jenkin: We always made it clear that we should like those who used the services to bear a higher proportion of the cost. I prefer to do that rather than to cut the service. My predecessor chose to slash back capital investment in the Health Service while refusing even to budge on prescription charges. That was a gravely mistaken priority. I believe that by maintaining the level of capital investment and asking patients to pay a bit more in charges we have the priorities right.

Pharmaceutical Services

Mr. Freeson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the annual cost of the administration of the pharmaceutical services scheme to the National Health Service.

Dr. Vaughan: Assuming that the hon. Member means payments to pharmacists other than the cost of ingredients, that was £205 million out of a total of £801 million in 1980. If he is asking about the cost of our family practitioner committees, that is not available, I am afraid, but I can tell him that the cost of the prescription pricing authority was £8·1 million in 1979–80.

Mr. Freeson: I take the qualification that the Minister made. How do the figures that he has quoted relate to the amount that has been recovered by prescription charge increases of 400 per cent. during the last two years? Has not this tax on ill health produced a minimal saving to the NHS?

Dr. Vaughan: No, I cannot accept that. Prescription charges yield about £80 million, which is a major contribution to the costs of the NHS. We are, however, carefully watching the administrative costs in all sections of the NHS with a view to improving the service generally.

Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend agree that the local pharmacy plays a vital role in our community health care services? What is the latest position on the closure of pharmacies? Are the numbers now stabilising?

Dr. Vaughan: Pharmacies are a most important part of our Health Service. There were 8,720 pharmacists in 1980. The trend of closures has been as follows. In 1975 the number was, overall, 209 down. In 1979 it was 38 down, and in 1980 the change was nil. We are therefore maintaining the numbers of pharmacists.

Mr. Skinner: We do not expect this Tory Government to enact any part of Labour Party policy, including that of nationalising the pharmaceutical industry. That will be dealt with in due process of time when we have a Socialist Administration, after we have got rid of this Government. Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of applying in this area what the Tories have appeared to set as a precedent in others —namely, a windfall profits tax? It was used to a degree in the case of North Sea oil. It was also applied to the banks to the tune of £400 million. Will he extend the principle and impose a windfall profits tax on the pharmaceutical industry?

Dr. Vaughan: The answer is "No". That is an unnecessary question. Pharmacists' profits are carefully monitored.

Unemployment

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether any assessment has been made of the cost to the National Health Service of the effects of unemployment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): No, Sir. Such an assessment would depend on being able to determine whether and in what ways unemployment alone affects health, what effects this has on demand for NHS services and the cost of that demand. As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) on 27


April —[Vol. 3, c. 346]—we are already sponsoring some work to assess the relationship between unemployment and health and the effects on health services, and are considering what further work is required.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister seen the work of Professor Harvey Brenner, a research scientist in the United States, who has shown that there is a clear link between mortality, unemployment and increased expenditure on health services? Will the Minister conduct an investigation in one of our regions that is suffering from particularly high unemployment —for example, the Northern region —to see whether there is a link to be established? If he does that, will he publish his findings so that we may all read them with great interest?

Sir George Young: I am familiar with the work of Professor Brenner. The Department is trying to replicate such work here. We are sponsoring research at Queen Mary college seeking to replicate Professor Brenner's work into the correlation between unemployment and mortality. We hope that the results will be available next year and that they will be published.

Mr. Foster: Is it not well known that there is an increased incidence of illness among the unemployed? Are not the unemployment black spots also the health black spots? Will the Minister make great efforts to give top priority to diverting resources to areas which are both unemployment and health black spots, such as the North-East?

Sir George Young: It is clear that unemployment can cause stress. It is reasonable to assume that there is some association between unemployment and health. A specific study by Dr. Fagin of 22 families showed that in some cases health worsened as a result of unemployment, but that in a few cases it improved; that shows the difficulty of drawing conclusions.
On the question of the funding of the NHS, those regions that are under-funded will catch up by implementation of the RAWP procedure.

Mr. Woodall: How does the Minister relate his reply to the recent statement by the Institute for Cancer Research that it is to mace 50 members of its staff redundant due of a shortfall in cash, which has been caused because no provision has been made to take account of the effect of inflation on the money that it receives from donations and covenants? Would it not be better if the Secretary of State tried to help that institute to keep the 50 workers in employment?

Sir George Young: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's point arises directly out of the main question. I think that he is referring to an early-day motion which is addressed to the Treasury, not my Department.

Nurses (Private Hospitals)

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress has been made in arrangements for private hospitals to contribute to the cost of training nurses.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Nurse training is being undertaken in a number of private hospitals and the private sector is considering how it might further increase its contribution to staff training.

Mr. Cryer: Is the Secretary of State aware that a private hospital being built near my constituency is being promoted by consultants who place private greed before the public need and the need of the NHS? What measures will he take to ensure that the private sector makes a contribution towards training, instead of drawing like parasites from the public sector, including from hospitals such as the Airedale general hospital in my constituency? They draw on people trained at the public expense. The training is lengthy and expensive. What will he do to make the private sector contribute to that expense?

Mr. Jenkin: I am aware that a 45–bed hospital is currently being built in Bingley. I am not aware of any evidence that that development will jeopardise the staffing of local NHS hospitals. On the contrary, we believe that the existence of the private sector is to the advantage of the NHS as a whole. It brings additional resources to health care and relieves some of the burden on the NHS.

Mr. Paul Dean: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, instead of knocking the private sector and the growing number of trade unions that take advantage of it, the Opposition should acknowledge that the growth of the private sector is bringing additional and much-needed resources into health care? Does it not also increase the supply of doctors and nurses in the NHS as a whole?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. It is another example of the Opposition being wholly out of touch with the majority of public opinion.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State is being specious today. Does he not well know that where there are private developments there is clear evidence that NHS staff are creamed off because of the extra pay that can be offered by the private sector? Why is he not honest enough to say that in his opinion privilege is always preferable to providing proper training, which is what the NHS is doing?

Mr. Jenkin: We have always made it clear that we wish to ensure that private developments do not prejudice the NHS. As the hon. Lady well knows, that is why in the 1980 Act we retained some of the control procedures that allow the Government to take steps to protect the NHS if health authorities feel that private development may prejudice their services, especially the recruitment of staff. As yet, no health authority has thought fit to invoke that section.

Health Facilities (Contractual Arrangements)

Mr. Cunliffe: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if it is his policy that all contractual arrangements entered into by the National Health Service to provide facilities for non-National Health Service units should be chargeable at the full economic rate.

Sir George Young: It is for the local health authority to determine the level of charges for NHS services provided to non-NHS establishments. Charges should normally cover the full cost, including any capital costs, of the NHS providing the service, but a more flexible approach may be adopted where this would be beneficial to the NHS.

Mr. Cunliffe: Does not the Minister agree that he is unashamedly subsidising private medicine by suggesting that short-term spare capacity arrangements can be made


with the NHS? Why does he suggest giving priority to private medicine when he is disposing of surplus NHS land? Is that not a class determination to ensure that the private sector can hive off facilities from the NHS?

Sir George Young: No, Sir. The contracts to which the hon. Gentleman referred that might use spare capacity in the private sector would be used to tackle the NHS waiting list. It would be in the interests of NHS patients if the relationship was developed.

District Health Authorities

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make arrangements to ensure that the new district health authorities maintain close working relationships with their appropriate local government authorities.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: No, Sir—I beg your pardon: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hooley: That is probably the quickest U-turn that we have seen from the Government. Does the Minister agree that, in preventive medicine, geriatrics and child care, it is of the utmost importance to have close collaboration between the NHS and the local authorities? In that context, does he agree that it would be infinitely preferable to have one district health authority for the whole of Sheffield, rather than splitting Sheffield artificially into two districts?

Mr. Jenkin: We attach great importance to maintaining effective collaboration between health authorities and local government. I plan to issue a circular later this year that will draw attention to the need for proper arrangements. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a statutory obligation to have a joint consultative committee. That provision was contained in the 1980 Act. Members of local authorities will be appointed to serve on the new district health authorities.
To ensure that the arrangements are properly monitored, I am asking regional health authorities to report to the Government on the arrangements that are agreed locally between health authorities and local authorities. The hon. Gentleman referred to Sheffield. I hope to announce shortly a decision on the new district health authorities in the Trent region.

Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend encourage health authorities to develop close working relationships with the broadcasting authorities to prevent distorted and unfair portrayals of the work of the NHS? I ask that especially in the light of the criticisms expressed today by the Under-Secretary about a proposed ATV documentary. What representations do my right hon. Friend or the local health authority intend to make about the programme?

Mr. Jenkin: I hope to see the programme tomorrow. I want to see what the fuss is all about. The Berkshire area health authority is holding a press conference this afternoon. It will have some pretty rough words to say about the producer of the film and about the way in which it was taken in Borocourt hospital, outside Reading. I do not want to anticipate that.
There is a need for much closer understanding between the broadcasting authorities and health authorities. I am encouraging health authorities to collaborate with the broadcasting authorities whenever possible. I hope that my

hon. Friend recognises that there have been many useful, well-balanced programmes about special hospitals. However, the issue requires fair play on both sides. I am not sure that that is always achieved.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) asked a separate question that should have appeared on the Order Paper.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the Secretary of State assure us that such districts as Kingston upon Hull will have adequate representation in proportion to their conurbations on whatever new authority is established in their areas? When will the new proposals for Humberside be published?

Mr. Jenkin: I am hoping to publish shortly the proposals for all the regions. There was widespread support for the view that district health authorities should be smaller in numbers than the existing area health authorities, and also for the view that within the new reduced number a local authority representation of four members on each district health authority should be the norm. That is what we are proposing.

Pensions

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many employees in the United Kingdom are covered by pension schemes contracted out of the State scheme.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): The latest figures indicate that 11·8 million employees are members of occupational pension schemes and of these, over 10 million are in contracted-out employment.

Mr. van Straubenzee: In the opinion of my hon. Friend, do those figures reveal that the contracted-out provisions have been a success and that a substantial number of people have obtained benefits under them outside the State system, many of which are better than those minima which they would otherwise have obtained?

Mrs. Chalker: Yes. I am glad to affirm our continuing commitment to the contracted-out partnership. It is true that the contracted-out arrangements have been successful. The number now in contracted-out employment is far greater than envisaged when the legislation was placed on the statute book. In many instances those in contracted-out employment have a second pension which is of greater value, but as the State second pension scheme builds up over coming years it will be an essential part of the future provision for those in retirement.

Death Grant

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will be in a position to make his statement on the future of the death grant.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): We are continuing our consideration of all aspects of the death grant and we shall make an announcement as soon as this is complete.

Mr. Dempsey: Does not the Minister realise that when the last increase was effected it met 70 per cent. of the cost


of a modest funeral whereas the present rate meets only 10 per cent. because of spiralling costs? Does he agree that this is a meagre payment and that the present rate should be increased substantially and urgently, especially as retirement pensioners, due to their age, are unable to insure themselves for proper cover to meet the cost of burial?

Mr. Rossi: I am well aware that since the death grant was first introduced in 1949 at £20 it has increased only to £30, since when the gap between that sum and the cost of a funeral has grown considerably. This is a matter that is receiving urgent attention, which has not been given to it in the past by successive Governments. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to report to the House as soon as our deliberations have been completed.

Mr. McQuarrie: I accept what my right hon. Friend said at the British Legion conference —namely, that it was his intention to try to come forward with proposals at an early date. Will he bear in mind that the situation in Britain is such that many more people are so poorly off when it comes to meeting death expenses that a greater number are having to be interred in paupers' graves? Will he endeavour to come to the Dispatch Box as soon as possible with information on an increase in the death grant?

Mr. Rossi: Yes.

Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister recognise that at this level of urgency we shall all be dead before he makes a report? By how much has the value of the death grant decreased since the Government came into power? Are they not content with making the sick and the elderly suffer in their lifetime? Do they intend to penalise their successors after death?

Mr. Rossi: If the Government were to restore the level of the death grant to its value in 1949, it would require about £120 million in all to make the grant available for every death.

Overseas Visitors

Mr. Woolmer: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he expects the imposition of charges on overseas visitors to have central, regional or area staffing implications.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: No, Sir.

Mr. Woolmer: If there is a requirement to ask overseas visitors to provide some proof of residence or length of stay in the United Kingdom, is not this certain to increase the demands upon staff time? Even more important, is not there the distinct possibility in the minds of many in the ethnic minority communities that by asking people to prove presence in this country to determine whether they are qualified for free treatment, those with black or brown skins, with foreign-sounding names, may be asked to provide proof of entitlement by providing passports? Does the Minister understand that this is an issue that is causing considerable anxiety among the ethnic communities?

Mr. Jenkin: I am aware of the anxiety that has been expressed and I am certain that it is misplaced. We have consulted the Commission for Racial Equality and other organisations which represent ethnic minorities to ensure that we have the simplest and the most non-discriminatory form of questioning that we can devise. We have made it

clear that any member of the ethnic minority who is living in the United Kingdom is as entitled to free use of the National Health Service as anyone else.
The present rules give rise to considerable difficulties, as recent articles in the press have demonstrated. All the existing tests and questioning have taken place under the existing rules. Those who criticise the proposals that the Government are putting forward must recognise that the present rules have in the past caused a good deal of distress and have involved a certain amount of inquiry, including inquiries of the Home Office immigration department. We want to have a simple test that will apply to everybody, one which every health authority will be able to operate simply.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this has nothing to do with racialism? If it had, he and his right hon. and hon. Friends would not be a party to it. Does he agree that it is a long overdue measure and is merely a balancing-out operation? British people have to pay when they go abroad and it is surely only right to expect that when people from overseas come to the United Kingdom they should pay for treatment that they receive from the National Health Service.

Mr. Jenkin: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We have engaged in one-sided largess for too long. No other country in the Western world gives free treatment to visitors from overseas. No other country has sought to follow our example. It is time to put the balance right.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman please stop pandering to the bigotry of his right hon. and hon. Friends and admit that the scheme is unworkable? He has already had to delay its implementation because he knows that everyone who is not 100 per cent. white or who does not have an Anglo-Saxon accent will be put through a series of questions by an admissions clerk to which they would not be subjected in any other circumstances. If the right hon. Gentleman lacks evidence, he should read the cases that have already been referred to him concerning St. Stephen's hospital.

Mr. Jenkin: The majority of patients who seek treatment as out-patients or in-patients at hospitals will have been referred to them by their general practitioners. I expect that in the majority of cases the general practitioner's letter will mean that the prospective patient will be asked no more than the first basic and simple questions —namely, name and address and how long the individual has been in the United Kingdom. Nothing more than that will be required. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) is doing no good to the case that she tries to make by exaggerating to an extreme degree. We are still consulting and when we are ready with proposals we shall come forward and announce them to the House.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell me this week that in future we shall find ourselves in the bizarre situation whereby overseas students coming here for medical or dental treatment training will not in the first three years of their training —for which they will pay more than any other student —be entitled to any form of treatment? Why does not he admit that he is hoping to look good when he is talking about what he has done in the National Health Service at the next Tory Party conference?

Mr. Jenkin: There has for a long time been public demand that foreigners coming from overseas should pay


for health care in the same way that British people pay for health care when in other countries. We want to ensure that we have a system that is simple to operate, that is clear to understand and that brings in the revenue that we want to have.

Health Education

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the effectiveness of health education as undertaken by local authorities, the Government and the Health Education Council.

Sir George Young: With a view to increasing effectiveness, we have reviewed the work of the Health Education Council, sustained its funding, and given a strong push to health education in our guidance to health authorities "Care in Action".

Mr. Dormand: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of the splendid work being done by the Health Education Council and local authorities, health education is still making insufficient impact on the public? Will he confirm that health education has an important role to play, not least in long-term savings to the National Health Service? Will the Government give much more moral and financial support to the splendid work that is being done by these bodies?

Sir George Young: I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member. For that reason, we have increased the funding to the Health Education Council to £6·5 million this year compared with £5·1 million last year. We have given guidance to local authorities and Health Service authorities to the effect that they should have a higher profile on health education. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It is sometimes a difficult message to convey and calls for skills in the medical profession and amongst others in the Health Service that are different from traditional curative medicine.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister's Department examine the possibilities which are wide open because of video and television and co-ordinate the work of the Health Education Council and the television authorities in the use of video in schools to instruct youngsters in health care?

Sir George Young: We shall pursue that matter. I believe that it is right to say that the television authorities already play a significant role in health education in their programmes for schools and in their general programmes.

Hospital Waiting List (Macclesfield)

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current hospital waiting list for operations in the Macclesfield parliamentary constituency.

Dr. Vaughan: On 31 March 1981 there were 2,420 patients awaiting operations.

Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a large number of people awaiting operations in the Macclesfield area? Is he aware that Macclesfield is a growing area and that grave concern is felt by the members of the district health council, the medical profession locally and the people of my constituency that the second phase of the district general hospital is now likely to be postponed? Is he aware that completion is vital if the waiting lists in Macclesfield are not to grow even bigger?

Dr. Vaughan: I understand that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the matter of waiting lists again as the position at Macclesfield is not at all satisfactory. While the national waiting list figures have gone down by 111,000 since we took office, at Macclesfield those figures have stayed roughly the same. It is important that the district general hospital should be opened as soon as possible. The first phase is expected to be completed in 1983.

Homes for the Elderly

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to introduce his consultative proposals on the registration and inspection of private and voluntary homes for the elderly.

Sir George Young: We hope to issue them before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that legislation was foreshadowed as long ago as December 1979 and that in November last year the proposals were said by the Minister to be under consideration? Meanwhile, many vulnerable old people are suffering in rogue private homes. When can we expect some action to strengthen the position of those clients and residents in old people's homes?

Sir George Young: As I said we shall issue the consultation document before the Summer Recess. As a result of the consultation process, the need for legislation should become clearer. One must strike a balance between protecting vulnerable people, which every hon. Member would like to do, and too legalistic and rigid a system which would deter people from providing such services and which registration authorities might be unable to operate.

Mr. Rees-Davies: When my hon. Friend is considering inspection and registration, will he take into account the criteria that are to be laid down regarding the standards that are to be maintained in those homes for the elderly? There is a great variation between the standards in different parts of the country. We should like to understand precisely what the Government have in mind in that regard.

Sir George Young: My hon. and learned Friend is right. That is one of the matters that will be clarified during consultation.

Ambulancemen (Pay Offer)

Mr. Soley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer of 11 May, Official Report, column 193, what assessment he has made of the effect on National Health Service services of an increase in ambulancemen's pay of more than 6 per cent.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Pay increases above the 6 per cent. cash limit would involve reducing services to patients —how much would depend on the knock-on effect on other settlements in the NHS.

Mr. Soley: As we seek to keep people out of hospital and as a good ambulance service is necessary for that, especially for the elderly and the infirm, why could not a better pay structure lead to an improved service? Is not the present offer an insult to the ambulancemen in view of today's offer to the chairman of British Leyland?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that, since the Government came to office, ambulancemen


have already had pay increases of 54 per cent. I am giving the figures for qualified ambulancemen. If this offer is included, their average earnings will be 66 per cent. higher than when we came into office. The existing offer is 7¾per cent. on basic rates spread over 15 months. The average earnings of leading ambulancemen is £184 a week in London and £163 a week outside London. I believe that the offer is fair. I hope that the ambulancemen will think twice before raking industrial action which is bound to hit patients who require treatment in hospital, particularly the elderly.

Mr. Paul Dean: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wholly deplorable if the ambulancemen were to withdraw their labour and thus take it out on the sick?

Mr. Jenkin: I deplore the decision to take industrial action and to seek more money for a group of people who, by no stretch of the imagination, could be regarded as underpaid. The management side of the Whitley council offered to discuss the whole range of terms and conditions, including the possibility of a salaried service for ambulancemen, putting them in this respect more on a par with firemen. When one considers that, the decision to walk out and to take industrial action is disgraceful.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q 1 Mr. Needham: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was also present when Her Majesty the Queen welcomed King Khalid of Saudi Arabia. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, and this evening I shall attend a State banquet given by the Queen in honour of King Khalid.

Mr. Needham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many, if not most, building societies insist that house insurances are channelled through them? Is she further aware that those insurance rates are often 50 per cent. higher than rates in the open market and that such societies take commission premiums of 35 per cent? Does not she think that that is an absolute scandal that should be dealt with?

The Prime Minister: I was aware that the point raised by my hon. Friend had been a problem. I had thought that the arrangements made by the Director General of Fair Trading in 1978 had dealt with it. Clearly they have not. Therefore, the Director General of Fair Trading is now considering whether further action needs to be taken.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady take this opportunity to express what I am sure must be the feelings of the House about the serious implications of the Israeli raid on Iraq? Does not she think that, apart from anything else, that makes even more urgent the necessity to take action on the non-proliferation treaty? Will she tell the House and the country what steps she and the Government have taken and are taking in the light of that latest, terrible, event so that something is done about it?

The Prime Minister: The Government have already made plain their view that that armed attack in such circumstances cannot be justified. It represents a grave

breach of international law. Had there been such an attack on Israel, I would have similarly condemned it. Such an attack as we have seen will add to the increasing tension in the area. With regard to the non-proliferation agreement, Iraq was a signatory to that agreement. The installation had been inspected as recently as January.

Mr. Foot: What steps have the Government already taken to try properly to implement the non-proliferation treaty? Can she tell us how many countries now have the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons, how many are open to inspection by the international authority and whether, in the light of this event, she and her Government will take fresh, urgent steps to try to ensure that that treaty operates properly?

The Prime Minister: The Government firmly support the non-proliferation treaty and wish that more countries would become signatories. It so happens that Iraq was such a signatory. We do not believe that she had the capacity to manufacture fissile material for nuclear weapons. In any event, that installation had recently been inspected by the international agency.

Mr. Walters: Bearing in mind that Iraq had signed the non-proliferation treaty, is not the unprovoked attack absolutely intolerable? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come when Mr. Begin's international gangsterism should be stopped, before his actions threaten peace not only in the Middle East but in the world?

The Prime Minister: We have, indeed, condemned the attack, which is a grave breach of international law. Any such act must be condemned wheresoever it occurs and by whomsoever it is carried out.

Mr. David Steel: Is the incident not a lesson that Western democracies should be less cavalier in exporting nuclear technology? For example, are the Prime Minister and the Government concerned about the report that South Africa is asking the United States for supplies of enriched uranium? Is there not urgent need to press for greater inspection and control through the International Atomic Energy Authority?

The Prime Minister: Yes. A tragedy of this case was that Iraq was a signatory to the agreement and had been inspected, but neither of those facts protected her. It was an unprovoked attack, which we must condemn. Just because a country is trying to manufacture energy from nuclear sources, it must not be believed that she is doing something totally wrong.

Mr. Jessel: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 9 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread support in the country and on the Government Benches for the Government's policy on Civil Service pay? As they cannot increase the offer beyond 7 per cent., is not continued industrial action futile? Will she take the opportunity to praise the majority of civil servants who continue to carry on with their duties?

The Prime Minister: I gladly take advantage of my hon. Friend's offer and praise the vast majority of civil servants who have carried on with their duties in the best traditions of the service. The Government believe that


under present circumstances the 7 per cent. pay offer is fair and reasonable. As a number of civil servants are concerned about future pay arrangements, the Government have agreed to negotiate next year before a cash limit is fixed, and are also anxious to have in operation as soon as possible a totally independent inquiry about future Civil Service pay arrangements.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. David Steel—sorry, Mr. David Owen.

Dr. Owen: I am glad to have such official endorsement for the alliance.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the signatories to the non-proliferation treaty, including the nuclear weapons States, pledged themselves to curb the growth of nuclear arms, and that the other signatories are expecting the nuclear weapons States to demonstrate their resolve? Will she reassess her animosity to a comprehensive test ban and take a much more positive role in negotiations with the Soviet Union and the United States to ensure that the comprehensive test ban treaty, which was very nearly successful in 1978, is now endorsed?

The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom adheres firmly to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the comprehensive test ban treaty was a long way from being signed, as far as the United Kingdom was concerned, because of the tremendous number of places that the Soviet Union was insisting on to monitor the treaty.

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Sainsbury: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to study the achievements of our exporting industries? Does she accept that those achievements are partly attributable to our willingness to promote the greatest possible freedom in international trade? Does she further accept that protection is not only always damaging to the consumer but, because it reduces the efficiency of British industry, usually also destroys jobs?

The Prime Minister: I totally agree that an exporting country such as ours needs freedom in international trade. Where we do not find it, we should attempt to open it up. I saw a Japanese representative this morning, and was the first to tell him that we should like as free access to the Japanese market as Japan has to our market. Our export record is excellent. Japan exports only 12 per cent. of her gross national product, France 24 per cent. and West Germany 28 per cent. For Britain the figure is 33 per cent.

Mr. Greville Janner: Reverting to the sad state of the Middle East, would not Iraq have had a nuclear weapon potential that it would have used against Israel?

Mr. Faulds: Israel has, and she has not signed the treaty.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be allowed to put his question.

Mr. Janner: Does the Prime Minister not feel a certain sense of relief that the Iraqi regime will not have a nuclear weapon potential for some further time to come?

The Prime Minister: Had there been an attack on Israel of the kind that there has just been on Iraq, I should totally and utterly have condemned it. I, therefore, totally and utterly condemn the attack on Iraq.

Sir Hugh Fraser: Although she condemns the use of force, does my right hon. Friend recall that over the past year many hon. Members have drawn attention to the danger and threat to peace of the previous French Government's export to Iraq of enhanced uranium, which has now come about? Although not condoning the use of force, will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to prevent, as Anthony Eden did, the sale of offensive weapons to an area that is already vastly over-supplied with such weapons?

The Prime Minister: I join my right hon. Friend in condemning the use of force, which will only add to the tensions in an area that is already unstable. The uranium supplied to Iraq was a high grade of enriched uranium necessary for the research reactor constructed. I agree that we should be very careful over the countries to which we supply such uranium.

Mr. Newens: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Newens: Has the Prime Minister seen the reports that raw material prices are rising rapidly, thus jeopardising the possibility of achieving her objectives on inflation? In view of escalating unemployment and all the other economic problems, what does she see as the successes of her economic policies, and how have they benefited people other than the wealthy minority?

The Prime Minister: I note that raw material prices have risen. Anything invoiced in dollars is bound to rise. I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was a great supporter of a high pound-dollar exchange rate. What a pity he did not appreciate it while we had it and support the lower raw material prices that it brought for the country.
With regard to economic policies, it makes it even more important that this country should be competitive both to get orders over here in competition with goods from overseas and orders overseas in competition with other countries which are themselves highly efficient and competitive.

Mr. Tapsell: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, at present, it is interest rate factors which are primarily influencing the world's currency markets, rather than fundamental economic considerations, so that there is an exceptional opportunity now for constructive international co-operation by Governments in the economic sphere, if they are prepared to seize it?

The Prime Minister: High dollar interest rates have undoubtedly contributed to the deterioration in value of all

European currencies against the dollar, but the relationship has by no means been a simple one. As we know, there was a time when our pound rode very high on international markets, although there was a very substantial gap between the United States' interest rates and ours. Therefore, although I agree in general that high dollar interest rates are having an effect upon European currencies, the relationship is not a straightforward or simple one.

Members' Speeches (Typescript Copies)

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you a matter of which I have given you notice. Hon. Members recently received notice to the effect that as from next Monday they would be entitled, upon request, to receive during the course of a sitting a clean copy of the corrected Hansard report of what they had said during that sitting.
I understand that the utilisation by Members of the record of their contributions to the debate is a matter within the scope of the Chair. I therefore wish to raise with you the question of the use in debate by hon. Members of the reports of their speeches thus obtained.
It has, I think, been a convention of our debates that we do not quote documentary evidence to one another as to what has been said previously in the course of the same debate. It appears from the wording of the notice which hon. Members have received that that possibility would be open. I wonder whether, having given consideration to this, Mr. Speaker, you would wish to make a ruling upon that aspect of the new arrangements.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the notice that he gave me of this point of order. It enables me to tell the House that when the Services Committee agreed and recommended that hon. Members could be supplied by the Official Report with corrected typescripts of their speeches in the Chamber, for their personal use, there was no intention to go back upon our former custom. There was no conferring upon hon. Members of the right to quote in debate from the typescripts as evidence of what they had said earlier. Hon. Members will still follow the usual form of debate that we have followed through past years. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is clear on that point.

Mr. Powell: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Since you half invite me, perhaps I may say that I fear that the temptation may at times be too strong to be resisted.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the right hon. Gentleman's point of order and your explanation, Mr. Speaker. If no hon. Members are allowed to use or to quote from the typescripts, what is the point of the extra cost, when hon. Members receive Hansard the following day? Why should we waste taxpayers' money in making available something for which hon. Members have to wait only 10 or 12 hours? You may smile, Mr. Speaker, but I am serious. It is a complete waste of money. I therefore hope that you, as the custodian of the practices of the House, will say that this waste of money should not take place and that we as Members of Parliament do not want it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be that the hon. Gentleman speaks for the House, but the Services Committee felt that there was a general desire on the part of the House—

Mrs. Renée Short: Nobody asked us.

Mr. Speaker: —and that hon. Members wanted a correct report in order to use it not in this Chamber but outside it—something that is equally near to the hearts of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand the ruling on this matter, there was also a reference to interventions in hon. Members' contributions. One is not able to comment on interventions made in a contribution. It seems very strange to publish outside the House a report of a contribution that makes no reference to interventions, taken as a record of what people are saying here.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the exchanges this afternoon, I shall ask the Services Committee to look at this matter again.

Highways (Small Business Signs)

Mr. Gerry Neale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit the posting of standard road directional signs to small business premises without the necessity to obtain planning permission or approval from the Department of Transport.
I apologise at the outset for the fact that it is necessary, in my view, to bring forward a Bill on this subject. One would have hoped that legislation would not be necessary. However, a relative purge is now taking place in the West Country against the posting of signs by small businesses and I feel that some protection must be given to them in this respect.
The purpose of the Bill would be to require county councils, in conjunction with district planning authorities, to publish within three months their approved standards of size, colouring and lettering for road direction signs to businesses in rural areas and to exempt the posting of two such approved signs in respect of any one business on land adjoining but not being part of the highway, without the need to obtain consent from the local planning authority or the Department of Transport.
The Bill would also provide for consultation with the environmental and conservation groups on the design, colouring and shape of the directional signs. Finally, on this aspect, the Bill lays down that such approved signs should have a surface area not less than 1·5 sq. ft. and not more than 3 sq. ft. and that they bear an arrow or some directional indication for the purpose of their business. There is a further point, to which I shall return in due course.
It may help the House if I outline briefly the legal position which prevails at present. In respect of verges to any road, whether relating to motorways, trunk roads or rural byroads, if a small business, or indeed any person, seeks to install a directional sign the local highway authority has power to prosecute for illegal posting of the sign. It has the power to remove the sign at the cost of the person posting it, and the person concerned is responsible for any damage or injury that results from anybody having a collision with that sign.
The only people who are able to insert or install a sign on the verge of a road are the Secretary of State for Transport or any other Secretary of State. As a matter of waiver under the law there is no planning permission required, provided that those signs are for purely traffic directional purposes.
In the case of land adjoining a trunk road, the owner's consent is required to post such a sign. Planning consent is required under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1969. The consent of the Department of Transport is also required for the construction of such a sign on a trunk road. On all other roads or byroads it is clearly a question of obtaining the necessary planning consent. The major part of my Bill would be devoted to signs posted off the highway on adjoining land.
Despite an admirable campaign by the Cornwall branch of the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses to obtain some standardisation and some approval from the local authorities concerned, all efforts to obtain a solution have so far failed. I asked the Cornwall branch for some examples of the sort of thing that was taking place. I was given a large dossier of small businesses in the West Country which are having the

greatest difficulty in obtaining consent. I have the dossier in my hand and hon. Members can see how large it is. In going through the examples I have been appalled at the repeated allegations from business people and from those representing them, and even from district councillors, that the county council highways management is arrogant, unco-operative and completely insensitive to small businesses. I have reason to think that this is typical of a number of areas in Britain.
The unemployment figures in Cornwall were among the worst in the country. The fact that it now has one of the best employment records is due to the activity of small businesses, as well as to the tourist and the allied catering and recreational facilities. But people must be enabled to find these businesses if they are to remain in existence. Small businesses in Cornwall—I have similar examples relating to Devon and the Lake District—find that signs which they have displayed for many years are challenged by the local authorities. The small businesses are asked to make an application in respect of the signs, and when they do so the application is immediately refused.
In one case a small business in Cornwall had displayed its sign for 10 years. The owner was challenged about the sign and asked to apply for consent. The application was promptly refused. He was questioned on whether there had been any complaints about the sign from the official authorities and the police, and his answer was "No". In another case, where a sign had been displayed for two and a half years, a similar challenge was made. Where businesses have been forced to take down signs, the effect on them has been profound.
The local authority in Cornwall is insisting that, unless the business concerned has an entry through its gate of well over 50,000 people, it should not be entitled to display a sign, whether or not consent is obtained for it. It is difficult to imagine how, when a business starts, it can aspire to having 50,000 people through the gate if it is unable to tell people where it is located.
The examples that I have given show that the position is far from adequate. Indeed, had I had more time, I could have given many other examples. If a sign is challenged successfully by the local authority, the inevitable result is that the small business man concerned draws attention to signs of other small businesses as an example of what he should be able to do. Unfortunately, the local authority then tends to cause other small businesses to remove their signs.
I should like to refer also to businesses that exist on or adjoining trunk roads. As I said earlier, in such instances the consent of the Department of Transport is required. Businesses close to motorway intersections should have the right to apply to the Department of Transport to pay for a direction sign or an appropriate symbol to be included on the direction sign constructed for or on behalf of the Department of Transport on the verges of highways. The potential of businesses that exist close to motorway intersections and trunk road junctions is considerable and is not exploited as much as it could be. I am aware that the Ministers in the Department have made considerable moves in this direction, which I welcome, but there is a mood within the small business community which would respond to greater opportunity and to the suggestion that it should pay for it.
In areas such as the West Country, where there are bypasses, businesses that are off the bypasses could also advertise themselves very successfully. I suspect that the


question of signs and consents for them arises from the very type of law, regulation and practice on which civil servants and council officials breed and thrive. Unfortunately, the more they breed and thrive, the more small businesses wither and die, because they cannot in many instances advertise their whereabouts.
There is, I believe, a great need for a statutory provision under which signs can be approved in the way that I outlined in the beginning of my speech.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerry Neale.

HIGHWAYS (SMALL BUSINESS SIGNS)

Mr. Gerry Neale: accordingly presented a Bill to permit the posting of standard road directional signs to certain small business premises without the necessity to obtain planning permission or approval from the Department of Transport: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 June and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

Employment and Training [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Industrial Training Act 1964 it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—
(a) in paying pensions, superannuation allowances or gratuities to or in respect of the former chairmen of industrial training boards wound up by orders made under section 9(1)(b) of that Act; and
(b) in making payments to the trustees of the Industrial Training Boards' Combined Pension Fund for the purpose of meeting the whole or part of any shortfall in the assets of the Fund referable to the pensions, superannuation allowances and gratuities payable in respect of the former officers and servants of industrial training boards which are wound up under that section.
The money resolution is required in order to authorise amendment No. 14, which will be moved later. I think it will be convenient to the House if we discuss the substance of the matter when we discuss amendment No. 14.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Employment and Training Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

ENTERPRISE ZONES

'(1) No levy in respect of any employee shall accrue due under a levy order made under section 4 of the Industrial Training Act 1964 over any period or part of a period during which that employee's employment is carried on at or from an establishment situated wholly or mainly within an area designated as an enterprise zone under Schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980; and any levy paid to an industrial training board by a person in respect of a period or part of a period over which by virtue of this subsection it does not accrue due shall be repayable by the board to that person.
(2) No requirement shall be imposed on any employer under section 6 of that Act (power to obtain information from employers) in respect of any employee in respect of whom he is exempt from levy by virtue of subsection (1) above or in respect of any such establishment as is mentioned in that subsection.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that this section shall not apply in relation to such employees or such establishments as he may specify in the order or shall apply to them with such modifications as he may so specify; but no such order shall be made unless the Secretary of State has first consulted the Manpower Services Commission or the Commission has submitted proposals to him for an order under this subsection.
(4) An order made by virtue of subsection (3) above shall be subject to annulment by a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Prior.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I ask the House, with the new clause, to restore to the Bill a provision for employers with establishments inside enterprise zones to be relieved of the industrial training board levy and of requirements from industrial training boards for information in relation to those establishments. The provision was part of the Bill when the House gave it a Second Reading, but it was voted out in Standing Committee. We propose now to take a reserve power to restrict the provision in order to meet concerns expressed in Standing Committee, should they materialise.
I shall not speak at length to justify the concept of enterprise zones. That concept was debated fully last year when the House approved the Local Government, Planning and Land Act. It also had a fair run in Committee. The idea of enterprise zones is to stimulate economic activity in a number of small zones where economic life has decayed, by relieving companies in a variety of ways from financial and administrative burdens. Relieving companies from the industrial training board levy and the form filling involved is a small but important part of the package of aids and incentives. In itself it may not make or break the enterprise zone experiment, but since the venture is experimental we think it right to give it the maximum chance of success by restoring this provision.
I have read the speech made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr.


Taylor). He takes a pretty dim view of both training boards and enterprise zones. He may like to reflect on the fact that if enterprise zones succeed, and if one of the reasons for their success is that form filling has been reduced, he might he able to make a stronger case against the statutory training boards now in existence.
In Committee my hon. Friend and others expressed hostility to the concept of enterprise zones, but the main point of concern was the possibility that the provision could be abused by companies that wanted to escape the levy without bringing substantial economic benefit to those zones. It was on that point that the clause foundered. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee saw dangers in fly-by-night companies setting up "brassplate" establishments in enterprise zones to avoid the levy. It was said that the provision was a poacher's charter.
Those possibilities may materialise, but they may not materialise to any great extent if companies find that the benefit that this provision confers does not outweigh the costs of moving. We certainly have no evidence to suggest that they will materialise, but we think it right to respond to the concerns expressed in Committee. One way of doing so might have been to modify the provision to confine the benefits to companies with employees working exclusively inside the zones.
We found it unsatisfactory to do that. It would have meant taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It would have required companies to give information about their establishments in enterprise zones to an extent that would have destroyed much of the purpose of the provision. It would have been complicated for companies to comply with and for industrial training boards to administer. It would have excluded from the benefits of the provision some activities that we want to encourage.
We think it better to take a reserve power to restrict the provision only if, and to the extent that, a problem emerges. The power that we propose is capable of general or precise application. It would enable us, if necessary, to remove the benefits conferred by the provision from some types of business or industries, should we find that they are tending to set up "brass plate" establishments in enterprise zones. It would enable us to confine relief to only some of the people working from establishments, or in other ways. In short, it would allow us to apply the remedy to the specific ailment that was identified. It would not, I emphasise, allow us to extend the provision in any way.
That seems to be a sensible way of tackling the potential problems of the provision, given that no problem may emerge, or given that it is only a limited problem. It seems consistent with the experimental nature of the concept of enterprise zones.
In addition to taking a power to restrict the provision, we are proposing another smaller change to the provision as first introduced. We propose to give the benefit of relief from the levy and from form filling to establishments that are mainly but not wholly inside enterprise zones. I would not pretend that this is an important step, since we are not aware of any establishments that are mainly but not wholly inside zones. In the main the boundaries of zones have been drawn so as to include premises completely or not at all, but a company might develop an establishment mainly in a zone, though with outlying premises outside. In those circumstances it would not be sensible to deny the company the benefits of this provision.
The new clause seeks to meet the most valid of the objections that Opposition Members raised in Committee. We think that we have relieved some of the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West, but it is impossible to relieve all his anxiety. Therefore, we hope that the House will give a fair wind to the new clause.

Mr. Barry Jones: On Second Reading in February right hon. and hon. Members—at least on the Opposition Benches—gave the then clause 4 a tardy reception. I recollect the powerful attack made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) on the provision. He rode all over the arguments for exempting firms from the levy in enterprise zones.
In Committee the hon. Member for Croydon. North-West (Mr. Taylor) brought powerful and well-informed arguments to bear against the clause. As he so bluntly and brutally said, clause 4 is impractical and has not been thought through. I should like to remind the Secretary of State of the Minister's speech in Committee on 9 April, on the original clause 4. Essentially, he first said that perhaps the wording was insufficiently stringent. Secondly, he implied that the clause was open to exploitation by firms that would locate themselves in enterprise zones solely to obtain exemption from training obligations. Thirdly, he was uncertain about the situation if buildings in an enterprise zone extended literally across the zone's boundaries.
It was odd to hear the Government propose with such uncertainty and imprecision a clause that has major consequences for industrial training. I noted the Secretary of State's flattery of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the subject of the "poachers' charter", which had been raised in Committee. It would seem that he was gently ravishing his clause. In effect, he sought to establish his alibi in case things went wrong, as they might if he presses on in this direction. The right hon. Gentleman seeks to rescue the situation and to propose a new clause.
When the Minister lost his clause in Committee we thought that the Government would return on Report with a watertight and comprehensible —if objectionable —set of proposals, but that is not the case. There is more, not less, confusion. For example, we are perplexed at the ambiguous phrases in lines 3 and 4 of new clause 1(1): 
at or from an establishment situated wholly or mainly within an area designated as an enterprise zone".
The wording appears to invite widespread and inevitable attempts to circumvent the right hon. Gentleman's professed good intentions. We strongly oppose the Government's proposal to widen the exemption to cover those firms that are situated mainly in enterprise zones. We think that that might result in firms that have three of their five establishments outside a zone being exempted from the training levy. That would result in reduced training opportunities for all employees so affected. Firms in enterprise zones will have every incentive to poach skilled labour from firms nearby and there will be unfair competition for those employers whose premises are outside, near to, or adjacent to an enterprise zone.
4 pm
The worrying thing is that the scope of the exemption proposed can be very wide indeed. It can apply where employment is


carried on at or from an establishment".
We can imagine, even if the Government cannot, some famous construction companies rubbing their hands with glee at the clause. We can imagine nation-wide haulage contractors doing the same. Perhaps we shall see some famous nameplates taken down and re-erected in enterprise zones. The options are there and the scope for manoeuvre is wide.
Those are some of the reasons why we should look with great caution at what is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. There are 11 enterprise zones in Wales, Scotland and England, but the House should not forget that the 11 zones range from 200 to 1,000-acre sites. It is possible that the Government will yet regret the nature of the clause, because the provisions as promulgated are more far-reaching than they appear to be at first sight.
The clause precludes firms in enterprise zones from paying levy on furnishing information, but it does not say that the industrial training boards are free from servicing them. We want the right hon. Gentleman to clarify that. If industrial training boards are to service firms in enterprise zones, is that fair to other employers when the Government are planning to return industrial training boards' operating costs to the industries?
In any event, small firms are excluded from the levy, so the introduction of the clause supports what both the TUC and the Association of Independent Businessmen have said about enterprise zones, namely, that they might be havens for property speculators and hypermarkets and could damage existing local small businesses.
The Secretary of State described an order-making power. He implied that it was an initiative of significance —a cut in the scope of the original clause. It has been proffered to us as a concession, though willingly proffered and courteously proposed, but it poses as many questions as the right hon. Gentleman tried to answer in his opening remarks.
Subsection (3) contains the reserve powers. On reflection, it seems to us that it is less of a concession than the right hon. Gentleman makes out. At first sight, his reference to the Manpower Services Commission appears to herald that quango's rehabilitation, on the basis that in clause 1 the commission sees its power and authority diminished by what might be the self-aggrandisement of the right hon. Gentleman in his accretion of extra powers on industrial training orders.
Subsection (3) makes only a hypothetical exclusion. The Secretary of State and the commission are here only contemplating which firm, if any, shall be denied the juicy plum of exclusion from the need to pay levy and provide information to a training board. The Secretary of State would have greater credit if he were to say that there would be a debate each time it was proposed that a specific company in an enterprise zone should not pay the levy.
The new clause is a fundamental breach of a basic principle for employers and employees, namely, that training should be provided and should be received. To legislate to exempt firms from their obligations to industrial training in the latter part of the twentieth century, in the midst of a serious economic depression, is irresponsible government. It is unfair to firms and employers in areas adjoining enterprise zones. They will have to undertake training and pay the levy, but their competitors in the enterprise zone will not.
The poaching of trained labour will be a certainty. There is no avoiding that if the Minister proceeds with the clause. On that basis, what he proposes is unjust. It is also inequitable, because the Government are effectively setting up a special status of company. It is pointless to say that the new clause affects but a few areas in the United Kingdom and that our opposition is much ado about nothing.
The CBI and the TUC each know now that the Government are not fully wedded to the concept of industrial training. The Government are making no attempt to try to propose that country-wide. That is what the new clause is signalling to British industry. Establishing the special category status will produce mischievous consequences.

Mr. Richard Needham: I am slightly confused. If the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that enterprise zones will consist entirely of hypermarkets and property developers, how will anyone be poached to do jobs that will require little if any training?

Mr. Jones: That is not entirely true. I was quoting the TUC and the Association of Independent Businessmen, but I was not adducing that in support of the argument that I propound. I dare say that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) was not being mischievous or trying to prevent me from concluding my remarks.
The clause will bring forth only mischievous consequences. It is a retrograde proposal. The Government have overlooked the needs of the nation and the worker in the enterprise zone. The worker is entitled, wherever he is, to more, not less, training. Training should embody some of the principles of industrial safety and a worker in an enterprise zone should have good, comprehensive training from experts and professionals. We oppose the clause because under its provisions that will not be available. The clause should be wholeheartedly opposed. It is a miserable one and deserves to fall.

Mr. Ken Eastham: I am surprised that the House is debating this subject once again, considering the time that was spent on it in Committee. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall that Conservative Members also opposed the sentiments expressed by the Under-Secretary. I thought that this subject had been shot down in flames, never again to be seen, but it has been presented in new clothing in a second attempt to give it respectability and the hope that it will be carried on Report.
As Labour Members study these enterprise zones more and more, they increasingly see them as gimmicks. Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented the concept of the enterprise zones in one of his early Budgets, we have listened to all kinds of methods and excuses to justify them as ways of trying to entice development into them.
We all know that the enterprise zones will not provide jobs or provide solutions to unemployment. In respect of jobs we may be robbing Peter to pay Paul. The House will realise that numerous local authorities have already cottoned on to some of the disadvantages of the enterprise zones and have made representations to the various Ministries.
There is a designated zone adjacent to the city of Manchester. There have already been numerous meetings not just with the local authority, but with the various


chambers of trade, which are now beginning to recognise some of the disadvantages in the offing. As a consequence, they have made some loud protests.
It is fair to remind the Minister that there are inner city areas with acute problems. The strange thing is that no special help is to be afforded to inner cities, Yet Government spokesmen have said many times that their sympathies still lie with the inner city programmes and that they intend to continue supporting them. Had the Government really wanted to assist employment their help would have been concentrated in areas such as the inner cities, but instead we are deluded into thinking that if we support the enterprise zones all will be well and things will improve.
It is worth reminding the House that many parts of the country that do not have enterprise zones are designated development areas or intermediate areas. They all deserve special Government assistance and sympathy, yet the Government do not propose any special assistance for those areas. All the evidence points to the possibility of a complete dilution of assistance to the development areas, as a result of which companies will be enticed to look to the enterprise zones with their gimmicks, such as exemption from industrial training.
The more I think of enterprise zones, the more I become disturbed and alarmed. For example, I have already heard noises about land values suddenly increasing in these enterprise zones because of speculation that if the Government introduce these various benefits the estate agents ought to be on the gravy train to share in those benefits. That is completely contrary to the sentiments that the Government have previously expressed. However, one can understand why society's wheelers and dealers think that they must share in this preferential treatment by making deals for these developments.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The idea that property speculators and others will cash in on these enterprise zones is in no way anathema to Conservative Members, because in 1973 they set in train the biggest racketeering and property speculation since the Second World War, and this proposal is on all fours with that.

Mr. Eastham: I do not argue with my hon. Friend's sentiments, with which I am in complete sympathy. He knows of numerous examples, and I am sure that many hon. Members could tap their experience to cite others. Nevertheless, it is proper at this stage for Labour Members to point out that things are not right. For those reasons, we are justified in opposing this continued preferential treatment to the detriment of other areas which must abide by the rules rind make a normal contribution to industrial training.
4.15 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) mentioned several possibilities, such as the establishment of bogus headquarters addresses in these enterprise zones. Will the Minister give a guarantee that that will not take place? It would be extremely difficult to justify the establishment of companies that take the view that because their address is in the enterprise zone they should be exempt from facing their fair responsibilities in competition with other industrialists who are going through a difficult time.
We believe that the concept of the enterprise zone is a complete farce, especially at a time when ordinary

companies are wrestling with Britain's devastated economy and trying to keep their end up. They are trying to produce future technologists and technicians and are facing their training obligations. Such companies will be confronted by some of the cheats in industry who will not pay a penny piece and who later will probably poach skilled people from adjacent areas.
I believe that that is a reasonable option which some companies will seriously consider. Not one clause in the Bill will help training. I defy any Conservative Member to put his hand on his heart, stand before the House and say that the Bill has been presented solely in the interests of improving training. Labour Members regard it as a poachers' charter, and the Government ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Jim Craigen: When a similar clause to this was removed from the Bill, I thought that good sense had prevailed. In Committee the Under-Secretary of State made the astonishing admission that there were many loopholes in the clause as drafted and conceded the Opposition's point that there would be ways in which companies could get around the intention of the Bill.
I am astonished that the Government should now seek to widen the opportunities to find loopholes. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), I am not surprised that they are trying to reintroduce the clause. I am just astonished that, having conceded in Committee that it did not constitute a watertight arrangement, they are now introducing an even more leaky clause.
The Under-Secretary of State smiles, but there were times in Committee when I thought that he had stepped out of a P. G. Wodehouse story. The hon. Gentleman acted like Bertie Wooster, but, unlike Bertie Wooster, he needed not one Jeeves but two to help him at times with his explanation of the Government's intentions on industrial training.
The main weakness is the abuses that are likely to take place when companies realise the advantage that is given when they are required only to be "mainly" sited within an enterprise zone. We have 11 Liechtensteins throughout the country. I thought in Committee that it might be enough to permit companies to have a name plate or a post box saying that its headquarters were located within an enterprise zone. I realise now that there are probably ample opportunities for enterprising business men to set up offices on a kind of "rent-a-room" headquarters basis. Companies will sense the opportunities available to them by siting their head offices within an enterprise zone in order to claim exemption from the levy for employees and the supplying of necessary information on their employment activities to the industrial training boards.

Mr. John Townend: If the hon. Gentleman is worried about abuses, does he agree that the greater the extent to which the Secretary of State exercises his discretion to wind up training boards and the fewer the number of training boards, the fewer the opportunities that will arise for the problems to which he refers?

Mr. Craigen: I know the mind of the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). I worked closely with him on the Employment Select Committee. I know that the hon. Gentleman would like to abolish the industrial training boards altogether.

Mr. Townend: Not quite. Nearly.

Mr. Craigen: That is remarkable concession. The Government are intent on moving from a statutory to a voluntary arrangement within the industrial training system. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be more encouraging not to exclude companies that lie within enterprise zones. If the Government feel as deeply in favour of voluntarism for industrial training boards as hon. Members are led to believe, I should have thought that more encouragement would be provided to employers in particular industries if the Government stated that there were no special privileges for a company that happened to be located within an enterprise zone. The Government have adopted the approach that companies within an enterprise zone will be exempted from paying rates. Why should an extra privilege be provided in respect of their reponsibilities towards the training of their labour, thus enabling them to escape those responsibilities in this sphere of manpower?
The Secretary of State suggested that the drafting of the new clause might assuage the misgivings of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor). The hon. Gentleman is a hard man to please on industrial training matters. He was rightly concerned about the prospect of a large company within an enterprise zone, employing hundreds of people, escaping its responsibilities for training, while a small company just outside the enterprise zone would have to shoulder its responsibilities.
I hope that more Government Back Benchers will think carefully about the implications of the new clause and realise what is involved, not only in respect of the undesirable practice, but in respect of the unfair competition that will benefit companies that happen to be sited within an enterprise zone. I hope that enough Government Back Benchers will think deeply enough to reverse the Government's intention.

Mr. Hooley: I am not surprised that the Government have called in their heavyweight Secretary of State to present the new clause to the House. His reputation as a flabby wet within the Cabinet is possibly becoming a little embarrassing. He perhaps feels that he has to demonstrate that he is as desiccated as some of his colleagues and needs to flex his muscles to show that he is as ideologically committed to free enterprise as the rest of the gang. I am not surprised that the junior Minister, who was obviously embarrassed in coping with the rebellion from his own side —he is really a very amiable chap —should have preferred to bow out of the debate on the Floor of the House and to shelter behind the prestige of his senior colleague, allowing him to do the donkey work.
The new clause is worse than the original clause. The phrase "wholly or mainly" has been included. This implies a creeping extension of the concept of enterprise zones. The debate has been bedevilled on both sides by split minds among some of my colleagues and certainly among some Conservative Members about whether the enterprise zone is a good idea.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The drift of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that the new clause may lead to a creeping extension of enterprise zones. The whole concept of the enterprise zone is surely to see whether the idea works. Would it not be better if the whole

country were an enterprise zone, with no restrictions? Would the hon. Gentleman be opposed to such an approach?

Mr. Hooley: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and most of the Cabinet would be terrified to hear the proposition put forward by the hon. Gentleman. The rate revenue, the tax revenue and heaven knows what else would disappear if the enterprise zone concept were extended in the manner that he proposes.
I do not believe that legislation approved in the past in respect of enterprise zones has ever introduced the principle that benefits should accrue to an establishment that was "wholly or mainly" within the zone. I may be wrong. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can call on his advisers for some exegesis of the 1980 Act to explain how the enterprise zones were defined. I do not recall even the Secretary of State for the Environment claiming that the various benefits that a private firm could gain by being situated in an enterprise zone would apply if the establishment concerned were "wholly or mainly" within the area.
The implications need to be examined. Let us suppose that the establishment is large and extends outside the zone. An extension might be built. Does that qualify? If another extension is added, does that qualify? How far can an establishment creep over the boundary? Does the number of people employed have to be defined? Is the square footage taken into account? Can a building go up to a height of 15 storeys and still claim the benefit? Does it depend on the definition of the ground floor area? The phrase "wholly or mainly" is the sort of sloppy wording that should not appear in a Bill of this kind. I am not aware that it has appeared hitherto in the enterprise zone concept.
4.30 pm
There have been split minds on both sides of the House on whether enterprise zones are a good thing. I have never hesitated in denouncing them as a cranky gimmick with no contribution to make to the economy or the creation of jobs. Bringing them into a Bill on industrial training, where they are wholly irrelevant and where the concept contributes nothing to the major argument about the nature and structure of industrial training, shows how dangerous a gimmick it is.
The phrase "wholly or mainly" is likely to cause immense complications and arguments between firms and the Civil Service on the question of who falls within the definition.

Mr. Robert Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he finds enterprise zones so objectionable when their purpose is to encourage firms to come to the area and create employment? Presumably he finds wholly praiseworthy regional policy that has exactly the same objective.

Mr. Hooley: If the hon. Gentleman seriously wants an answer to that he should read the excellent speech that I made on the Report stage of the Finance Bill last year, when I set out in considerable detail my objections to enterprise zones. My arguments were cogent, coherent and compelling, and still are. If the hon. Gentleman wants to study enterprise zones in general and reads my speech he will be enlightened.
In addition to the sloppy phrase "wholly or mainly", the clause contains the even more dangerous and alarming phrase in line 3:
carried on at or from an establishment".
Why could not the Government, if they mean this exemption to apply, honestly and straightforwardly say "in an establishment"? That is simple, straightforward and easy to understand. But no, the Government produce this vague and dangerous phrase "at or from". "At" could certainly be construed as meaning the same as "in", but "from" is a different matter.
If a firm sets up a regional or area office in an enterprise zone, and if most of its employees are employed on activities around the area outside the enterprise zone, or far from it, does it qualify for the exemptions set out in the clause? There are many firms in this category. Reference has been made to haulage firms, whose employees go all over the country. There are construction firms that carry out contracts throughout the kingdom. Many firms employ travellers and agents to gain business for them —double glazing firms, for instance. They may send hundreds of employees around the country seeking to gain business.
If a firm of that type sets up its regional office, area office or headquarters in an enterprise zone, can it claim exemption from the levy in respect of all its workers who are scattered about the kingdom? Let us suppose that that firm has a long-established competitor in another city, or in another place in the same city but not within the enterprise zone. Is the competitor to have to put up with the disadvantage that his rival can claim exemption in respect of training and that the staff that he has so carefully trained can be poached, borrowed, seized or stolen by the fly-by-night firm in the enterprise zone, which makes no contribution to training?
The Minister said that subsection (3) gave the Government draconian powers to clobber ruthlessly firms that sought to exploit this situation. I am surprised that a Conservative Government should see fit to take powers like this to direct the affairs of private firms. What is more curious is that they will put themselves in an invidious position. They will have to say to a firm that transgresses subsection (1) by setting up its office in an enterprise zone when most of its employees are working throughout the kingdom, "Sorry, we did not mean this to apply to you". The firm will then say that another firm in the enterprise zone is doing the same, but that is has not been told not to do it.
What kind of power is this, to pick and choose between private enterprise firms, telling one firm that it cannot do this, and another that it can? I am sure that there will be some snarls from the CBI, if from no one else, about subsection (3).
The answer comes from the Government "But we shall not use it, or we shall not use it very much". That is the truth of the matter. It has been put in as a sop in reply to complaints made by both sides of the Committee about this whole gimmick. To save face the Government are insisting on the enterprise zone provision but are shoving in a saving clause to make it clear that they will not tolerate large abuse.
Does anyone seriously believe that the Secretary of State will lay order after order in respect of individual firms that have set up in enterprise zones for the sake of avoiding training levies, to bring them to heel? Of course not. Subsection (3) is not seriously meant. It is put in as

a form of words so that the Secretary of State can tell the CBI and the trade unions that no abuse can occur because the Government have legal powers to correct it.
The Government know full well that with all the mass of business that falls on the shoulders of the Secretary of State and the Department of Employment they will never bother about the clause. It is simply a cosmetic exercise, put in partly to reassure and partly to fudge the issue and pretend that the dangers that hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out do not exist.
In Committee the Minister used a delightful phrase when he said:
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West will agree that, if we are able to exclude them from an added burden, that will be good for them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9 April 1981; c. 250.]
He was talking about private firms. The Bill puts an extra burden of £50 million on industry. The Minister says that this silly little gimmick will save £500,000, or perhaps £1 million, or perhaps nothing. He has the gall to present to the House a Bill which deliberately shifts extra payments of £50 million on to industry. If ever there was evidence of the nonsense of the clause, that phrase is it.

Mr. Derek Foster: I am delighted to follow the powerful argument by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). I was one of those perhaps naive members of the Committee who thought that, since we had defeated the clause there, that would be the last of it. I shall be interested to hear the contribution, if any, from the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) if he has the opportunity of catching your eye on this issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We are reconsidering a clause that was roundly defeated. The argument was won by Opposition Members, yet the Government are crawling back to stampede this new clause through the House by using the unthinking soldiers that they have at their disposal.
I was not in Committee and I still am not implacably opposed to the concept of enterprise zones. Anyone who has experienced the difficulty of trying to attract jobs into inner city areas recognises that it is difficult enough to attract them to green field sites in special development areas, especially now that the amount of footloose industry is seriously reduced and the competition for it has increased so much. I am one of those who look to a whole range of experimentation in inner city areas to help us to make some impact upon the fearful problem of attracting new jobs to those areas.
However, I am implacably opposed to the exemption of companies, large or small, in such enterprise zones from making a contribution towards training. If the enterprise zone is designed as a way of making a contribution towards reducing unemployment in inner city areas, one thing is being forgotten. Surely the Secretary of State would be the first to admit that the vast majority of the unemployed in inner city areas are unskilled.
In that situation, any company that is moving into an enterprise zone either neglects to employ the people in the neighbourhood of that zone because they have not the relevant skills for the enterprise or it goes about trying to train those people. I hope that all companies will do the latter. Then they would find that they would need to spend the money that is necessary to initiate proper training programmes.
Many of the companies that will move into enterprise zones will not do the training. Especially in the short term,


they will do what many other companies have done for too long —that is, poach skilled labour from where they can get it. Some of my hon. Friends have rightly damned the clause and the whole Bill as a poachers' charter. We are convinced that there is nothing in it that will enable the Secretary of State to fulfil the laudable objectives that he enunciated to the House in his November statement, which many on this side of the House are fully agreed with and wish him well in seeking to attain.
Here the right hon. Gentleman is giving another exemption to companies irrespective of their size, of how long they have been established and of their commitment to training elsewhere. He is making an exception purely on the ground that they are operating.
at or from an establishment situated wholly or mainly within an area designated as an enterprise zone".
Surely small companies which some people wish to exempt from the burden of the levy are already sufficiently exempt within the training stuctures. I have not heard any hon. Member make a strong case that they are not. So a small company within an enterprise zone is hardly likely to find training a burden.
4.45 pm
What possible reason can there be for exempting a medium-sized or large company from its commitment to training? There can be no reason. If there is a valid reason for exempting such companies from the so-called burden of training, we should discuss the responsibility not only to train for their own needs but to contribute to the national needs of training —not the burden of training. If there is sufficient reason to exempt them if they are operating within an enterprise zone, what will prevent another Secretary of State, or even this Secretary of State, from coming to the House next year and saying that the exemption in enterprise zones has proved such a good idea that the Government want to extend it to most of the country?
I want from the Secretary of State a justification for any company in an enterprise zone having such exemption. Why should these companies be allowed to reduce their responsibility and contribution to the training commitment? Not only does the Secretary of State need to justify to the Opposition why any company should be exempt, but he needs to explain to Members on his own Back Benches why people who operate within spitting distance of an enterprise zone, or even within 20, 30 or 100 miles of one, should be so unfavourably placed. Why do people whom the Government want to attract to enterprise zones need to be given this additional incentive? Is the Secretary of State really saying that there are not sufficient incentives already?
How much additional incentive are we talking about? My guess is that it is peanuts and not sufficient to be taken seriously into consideration by a company among the other decisions that will influence it. If that is the case, why include it in the Bill? Why cause injustice to companies that operate in surrounding areas or elsewhere?
I remain highly sceptical of the success of enterprise zones. I, too, have the great fears, which some of my hon. Friends have expressed, about them being attractive only to property speculators and hypermarkets. I, too, am deeply concerned about the number of multinational companies that are considering shuffling their operations into enterprise zones. If that is the result at the end of the

day it will prove a completely and expensively fruitless exercise. The burden of proof remains with the Secretary of State to justify to Labour Members why any company should be exempt and to Government Members why other companies should be put at such a disadvantage.

Mr. Robert Taylor: I am flattered and surprised that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should have found time to read my humble contribution in Committee. I am even more flattered that four of the five Opposition Members who have spoken in the debate so far have similarly referred to the few remarks that I made. In spite of that flattery I remain unconvinced by and dissatisfied with the revised clause that is before us.
My criticism is not the same as that made by some Labour Members. It shows a naivety and lack of knowledge of business to suggest that because firms in enterprise zones may be excused the payment of industrial training levies they are likely to go on the rampage and poach trained personnel from firms outside the enterprise zones. I agree with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), who said that the levy was peanuts compared with the other inducements that were available to bring firms into enterprise zones.
I oppose the clause because it introduces an element of bureaucracy that is quite unnecessary, particularly at a time when we are trying to reduce bureaucracy. Moreover, it puts firms outside enterprise zones at a further disadvantage.
A letter in The Times today is extremely pertinent. It comes from the secretary of the National Chamber of Trade, who writes from Enterprise House, at Henley-on-Thames, saying
The ironic part of the whole scheme
—enterprise zones—
is that the businesses on the outside of the zone boundaries not only lose out to completely unfair competition, but have to foot the bill for the £20 million capital allowances and £50 million rates lost by the end of the 10-year period.
He omitted to say that in addition they would have to continue to fund the industrial training boards without the assistance of those firms that are operating from the enterprise zones.
The fact that it is necessary for my right hon. Friend to reintroduce the clause suggests that, as a result of the Bill, he will not disband the number of boards that I hoped on Second Reading would be disbanded. If, as a result of the Bill, he does away with many of the industrial training boards, surely the clause is superfluous. If he intends to continue the industrial training boards, with all the paraphernalia of levies, grants and form filling that those of us in industry know so well, the outlook is quite unsatisfactory.
My right hon. Friend is taking wide powers in the new clause. Subsection (3), which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) quoted, says that the Secretary of State shall not apply the order
in relation to such employees or such establishments as he may specify".
That is a very wide power to grant to any Secretary of State. I am certain that while my right hon. Friend is Secretary of State he will excercise the power with discretion and common sense, but that may not always happen. The House is in danger of introducing far too much legislation which, by its nature, gives powers to Secretaries of State to take action that should not be taken


without the consent of the House. It is a dangerous tendency. We should be careful about giving Secretaries of State such wide-ranging powers.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us how he will exercise those powers. The issue has already been raised of companies that set up in enterprise zones and trade outside them. My right hon. Friend dealt with the matter to a certain extent when he referred to "brass-plate" companies. What about the multiple retail outlet that has a shop inside an enterprise zone? Will it be allowed to exempt all the employees who work in that shop from paying to the distributive industrial training boards? If so, how does my right hon. Friend and his Department know how many of the employees on the company's payroll work full time in that one multiple retail outlet that is centred in the enterprise zone?
Let us consider a building that is to be constructed in the enterprise zone. I assume that the registered office does not provide the qualification for exemption from levies. Therefore, the activity must be the exemption. If a construction company completes a contract inside an enterprise zone, presumably the employees working on that contract will be exempted from their levy. Who is to say how many people on that payroll will be working full time on that job? What about the directors? What about the contract managers? What about the site agents? What about all the employees? How will my right hon. Friend manage the scheme? In my view, it is unworkable. Therefore, I remain unconvinced by this revamped clause. I cannot support my right hon. Friend, and it is not my nature to sit on the fence.

Mr. Prior: I am disappointed by my hon. Friend's remarks, because I thought that we had gone a long way towards convincing him that what we were doing was sensible and wise. He made great play of the bureaucracy of British institutions. The new clause is an attempt —in my view a laudable attempt —to reduce bureaucracy in certain areas in order to encourage the growth of employment. It is a pilot scheme to see what else can be done to show that enterprise will flourish as a result of reducing bureaucracy, form filling, and so on. I had hoped that my hon. Friend would come that far with us. Any Secretary of State would use the powers sparingly, and the powers are, of course, subject to the negative procedure in the House. No doubt my hon. Friend will be vigilant in seeing that the powers used by Secretaries of State are kept to the minimum. If enterprise zones are to function as we hope they will, they should have as much freedom from form filling and bureaucracy as possible.
As we have strayed a little wide, I shall enumerate the benefits that are available to industry and commerce in an enterprise zone: exemption from general rates; exemption from development land tax; 100 per cent. capital allowances; simplified planning procedures; speedier handling of requests for Customs warehousing; exemption from IDCs; minimal requests for statistical information; and, subject to the passage of the Bill, exemption from ITB levy and information requirements.
I am sure that many people will want to set up businesses in enterprise zones.

Mr. Eastham: Why, then, do we not offer the same concessions to the designated inner city areas, which in major cities have all these acute problems? The right hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues are saying that they

need all the support that they can get to create these inducements. Why do those areas not receive the same consideration?

Mr. Prior: For geographical reasons we decided that there must be separate zones for the purpose, other than inner city areas. That is why, on the whole, derelict areas have been chosen in certain places, so that they do not conflict with existing businesses. The idea is to attract new business.
5 pm
There is bound to be a degree of selectivity in any regional policy, whether it involves development areas, special development areas or any other status, when something special is given to one area that is denied to others that are made to pay for it. Certain advantages being conferred on people inside a zone that other people just outside the zone have to pay for is nothing new. That has always been one of the factors in designating an area. This is no exception.
Opposition Members had better make up their minds. Some of them think that the enterprise zone concept will fail. If that is so they have nothing to worry about. If only hypermarkets or property companies set up in enterprise zones the training establishment will not be affected. On the other hand, if, as some Opposition Members believe, enterprise zones turn out to be honey pots, to which many new firms will go, training is relevant, and so is new industry and new employment. The Opposition must decide which way they believe enterprise zones will work.

Sir Albert Costain: When the Government's plan becomes successful, Opposition Members will argue that people are speculating and may make some money out of it.

Mr. Prior: That is another contradiction.
The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) asked whether the ITB was empowered to assist establishments in an enterprise zone. The ITB is empowered, but not required, to assist establishments in an enterprise zone. The clause applies only to establishments "wholly or mainly" in a zone. If an establishment is outside a zone the clause does not apply to it. However, workers controlled from an establishment in a zone are exempt under the clause. It will depend on the definition of the establishment whether it is held to be within a zone.
In the case of Lord Advocate v Babcock and Willcox (Operations) Ltd., concerning the firm's construction site at Didcot power station, it was held by the House of Lords that the site at the power station was an establishment because there was exclusive occupation of the premises, because it had some degree of permanence, and because organisational and administrative functions were performed there. It was also said that not all construction sites could be regarded as establishments.
It will be a question in each case whether a temporary headquarters or site in a zone is an establishment. Similarly, if a construction company sets up its headquarters in an enterprise zone it will have to establish whether construction sites throughout the country constitute establishments that fall outside the zone or whether they are included in the headquarters. One of the purposes of the clause, and particularly of subsection (3), is to meet that point. It gives the Secretary of State power, if he feels that it is necessary, to take action in regard to such an establishment.

Mr. Craigen: The Secretary of State is acknowledging that he expects companies to have the double advantage of establishing their headquarters in an enterprise zone and employing people outwith the zone.

Mr. Prior: In some cases that will be so. It is inevitable. If a haulage firm is set up in an enterprise zone drivers will travel outside that zone, but they will be assessed as if they worked from the zone, and therefore the employer will not be subject to the industrial training board levy.

Mr. Robert Taylor: What if a haulage firm sets up inside an enterprise zone and has a depot outside the zone?

Mr. Prior: That will depend on whether it is considered to be a major abuse and whether the depot outside the zone constitutes an establishment "mainly or wholly" within the zone. I should have thought that depots spread throughout the country would not qualify. However, that will be a matter to be decided at the time.
I hope that few such cases will arise. That is why the original clause did not include powers such as we are including in the new clause. That seems to be sensible. We think it right to introduce the new clause so that if "brass plate" abuse of the type discussed in Committee occurred, or poachers' charters or little Liechtensteins were set up, we could deal with the matter.

Mr. Harold Walker: The Secretary of State has created a whole new area of uncertainty for many firms, particularly in the construction industry. The Construction Industry Training Board is responsible for skilled manpower —a crucial aspect of the economy. The Secretary of State said that it would be open to any major construction company building motorways or petrochemical plants, for example, to establish an office in an enterprise zone from which it could be said that men were working and thus obtain exemption from the levy. However, such a company will not know whether the Secretary of State will slap an order on it restrospectively.

Mr. Prior: We shall not restrospectively slap an order on a company. The right hon. Member is making a terrible meal out of the issue. We want to encourage people to set up in the enterprise zones. We want to put as few obstacles in their way as possible. However, outside interests and members of the Committee have said that the scheme could be subject to the abuse that firms could move into a zone with their headquarters and all their other activities throughout the country would be exempt from the training levy. If that happened, by statutory instrument the Secretary of State may
provide that this section shall not apply in relation to such employees or such establishments as he may specify in the order or shall apply to them with such modifications as he may so specify; but no such order shall be made unless the Secretary of State has first consulted the Manpower Services Commission or the Commission has submitted proposals to him for an order under this subsection.
That makes the position clear. I have no doubt that the construction industry understands what would be considered to be a proper establishment in the enterprise zone and what would be considered to be an establishment outside the zone. I do not believe that the problems are likely to arise. The Government believe that where there is reasonable doubt the benefit of that doubt should go to the firm in the enterprise zone. We wish to encourage

firms to move into those areas of dereliction and high unemployment so that they can create new employment. That is the purpose of framing the new clause in this way.

Mr. Hooley: The Secretary of State can get away from the business of laying orders, giving directives and so on, if he will drop the phrase "at or from" and say "in". I thought that the objective was to create employment in the enterprise zones. If he drops the nonsense about "at or from" and simply says "in" he will not need all the other apparatus.

Mr. Prior: That is nonsense. If we use the phrase "in an enterprise zone", anyone who works outside it will be subject to the levy. There will be those who work outside the enterprise zones but whose firms are established in them. To go down the path suggested by the hon. Gentleman would make nonsense of the whole purpose of the clause, which is to try to prevent the growth of bureaucracy and give firms an advantage that they would not otherwise have. That is the whole purpose of the clause. It is wide ranging, and its definitions are also wide.
It is true that other benefits do not apply to an establishment wholly or mainly within a zone. To avoid bureaucracy we thought it desirable not to divide the establishment for the purposes of the clause and the training levy. Previously, the clause included the words "wholly inside the zone". That would mean that being even a few square feet outside the zone would disqualify the whole establishment. That is why we have used the phrase "wholly and mainly". The concept of "establishments" does not appear in existing legislation affecting enterprise zones, because "establishments" is primarily a concept of employment law. Other Acts, for example, refer to hereditaments and not to establishments.
I believe that the concept of the enterprise zone is something that we should support. The hon. Member of Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) recognised that in Committee, and again this afternoon. The general view is that enterprise zones will be popular and that the concessions in themselves will provide a number of opportunities that otherwise would not occur.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) was disappointed that we had tabled the new clause. He suspects that the number of training boards that will be abolished will be rather less than would otherwise have been the case. No decisions have been reached on that subject. First, it will depend entirely on the advice that I am given by the Manpower Services Commission —which has not yet submitted proposals about any sectors of industry —and after that on the Government's view, taking account of the problems associated with the transfer of operating costs from Government finance to a training board.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: The right hon. Gentleman said that enterprise zones were popular. Undoubtedly they are popular in some quarters, but has the right hon. Gentleman seen the criticisms levelled at them by the Liverpool chamber of commerce, which has not shown great enthusiasm for them? Should he not take that view into consideration?
While I am on my feet, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is really suggesting that an old-established construction firm in the city of Liverpool should be encouraged to move its headquarters into an


enterprise zone so that it will not pay a levy —a levy that is vital if we are to obtain the training that is needed in the;construction industry?

Mr. Prior: I am not saying that. I have already said, before the hon. Gentleman came in—

Mr. Heller: I am sorry that I was late. I was at another meeting.

Mr. Prior: This is an important meeting.

Mr. Heffer: I am here now.

Mr. Prior: I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman is here now. I accept his apology. I do not believe that there is any evidence that large construction companies will deliberately move their headquarters into enterprise zones. If they were to do that to attract the advantages of enterprise zones and to exempt themselves from the industrial training board levy, the provisions in the clause would prevent that happening. The hon. Gentleman need not worry too much on that score.
I confess that I have not read what the Liverpool chamber of commerce has said about enterprise zones. I am not surprised to hear that there is some criticism of them. I have reached the conclusion that in Britain it is almost impossible to do anything that does not at some time attract criticism from somebody. Whenever we try anything new in Britain thousands of people pour cold water on it. That has been done adequately by the Opposition this afternoon. I hope that on the basis of my remarks they will withdraw their opposition to the new clause.

Mr. Barry Jones: No, Sir. When the Secretary of State introduced his new clause he conceded that there was a possibility of abuse—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman must seek the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Jones: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask the leave of the House to speak again. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman knew that the new clause could be a poachers' charter. He said that there would be complications. I suppose that the best description of his remarks is that he played both ends against the middle. The more that he tried to answer the questions posed by my hon. Friends, the more it became clear that the new clause had been ill thought out.
The Government obviously had difficulty in framing the new clause, for the second time, in as watertight a way as they wanted. We are facing the pressures of time in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman said that matters depended on the definition of the establishment. He perplexed us, specifically, with his citation of the precedent and the answers that flowed from that. It is rather late in the day for him to confront us with such an answer.
The right hon. Gentleman has failed to convince us. He has confirmed our worst anxieties and we shall vote against the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 193.

Division No. 211]
[5.18pm


AYES



Adley, Robert
Goodlad, Alastair


Alexander, Richard
Gorst, John


Ancram, Michael
Gow, Ian


Arnold, Tom
Gower, Sir Raymond


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Greenway, Harry


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Grist, Ian


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Grylls, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hamilton, Hon A.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Blackburn, John
Hannam, John


Body, Richard
Haselhurst, Alan


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Hawksley, Warren


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hayhoe, Barney


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hicks, Robert


Bright, Graham
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brittan, Leon
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hooson, Tom


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hordern, Peter


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldfd)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Buck, Antony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Burden, Sir Frederick
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Butcher, John
Jessel, Toby


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Kershaw, Anthony


Chapman, Sydney
King, Rt Hon Tom


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knox, David


Cockeram, Eric
Lamont, Norman


Colvin, Michael
Lang, Ian


Cope, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Corrie, John
Latham, Michael


Costain, Sir Albert
Lawrence, Ivan


Cranborne, Viscount
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Critchley, Julian
Lee, John


Crouch, David
Le Marchant, Spencer


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dover, Denshore
Loveridge, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lyell, Nicholas


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Macfarlane, Neil


Durant, Tony
MacGregor, John


Dykes, Hugh
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Eggar, Tim
McNair-Wilson, M, (N'bury)


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McQuarrie, Albert


Fairgrieve, Russell
Madel, David


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Major, John


Farr, John
Marlow, Tony


Fell, Anthony
Mates, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mather, Carol


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Mawby, Ray


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Mayhew, Patrick


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mellor, David


Fry, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moate, Roger


Glyn, Dr Alan
Monro, Hector


Goodhart, Philip
Moore, John






Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Sims, Roger


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mudd, David
Speed, Keith


Murphy, Christopher
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Myles, David
Sproat, lain


Neale, Gerrard
Squire, Robin


Needham, Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Nelson, Anthony
Steen, Anthony


Neubert, Michael
Stevens, Martin


Newton, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Normanton, Tom
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Onslow, Cranley
Stokes, John


Osborn, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Tapsell, Peter


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Parkinson, Cecil
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Parris, Matthew
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thompson, Donald


Pattle, Geoffrey
Thorne, Neil (llford South)


Percival, Sir Ian
Thornton, Malcolm


Pink, R. Bonner
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pollock, Alexander
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Porter, Barry
Trippier, David


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Viggers, Peter


Prior, Rt Hon James
Waddington, David


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wakeham, John


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rathbone, Tim
Walker, B. (Perth)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Renton, Tim
Wall, Patrick


Rhodes James, Robert
Waller, Gary


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Warren, Kenneth


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Wells, Bowen


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wheeler, John


Rossi, Hugh
Whitney, Raymond


Rost, Peter
Wickenden, Keith


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wilkinson, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Scott, Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shelton, William (Streatham)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shepherd, Richard
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.


Silvester, Fred





NOES


Abse, Leo
Craigen, J. M.


Adams, Allen
Crowther, J. S.


Allaun, Frank
Cryer, Bob


Anderson, Donald
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dalyell, Tam


Beith, A. J.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Deakins, Eric


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Dempsey, James


Bradley, Tom
Dewar, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dixon, Donald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dobson, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Dormand, Jack


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Dubs, Alfred


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Dunn, James A.


Campbell, Ian
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eastham, Ken


Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
English, Michael


Cohen, Stanley
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Coleman, Donald
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Evans, John (Newton)


Conlan, Bernard
Ewing, Harry


Cook, Robin F.
Faulds, Andrew


Cowans, Harry
Field, Frank





Fitch, Alan
Morton, George


Flannery, Martin
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Newens, Stanley


Ford, Ben
O'Halloran, Michael


Forrester, John
O'Neill, Martin


Foster, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foulkes, George
Palmer, Arthur


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Parry, Robert


George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Penhaligon, David


Golding, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gourlay, Harry
Prescott, John


Graham, Ted
Radice, Giles


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Richardson, Jo


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robertson, George


Haynes, Frank
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rooker, J. W.


Heffer, Eric S.
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Home Robertson, John
Sheerman, Barry


Homewood, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hooley, Frank
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Howells, Geraint
Silverman, Julius


Huckfield, Les
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Snape, Peter


Janner, Hon Greville
Soley, Clive


John, Brynmor
Spearing, Nigel


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Spriggs, Leslie


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Stallard, A. W.


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stott, Roger


Kerr, Russell
Strang, Gavin


Kilfedder, James A.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lamond, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Leighton, Ronald
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Litherland, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Tilley, John


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


McElhone, Frank
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


McKelvey, William
Wellbeloved, James


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Welsh, Michael


McTaggart, Robert
White, Frank R.


Magee, Bryan
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Whitehead, Phillip


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Whitlock, William


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Maxton, John
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Winnick, David


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Woodall, Alec


Mikardo, Ian
Woolmer, Kenneth


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Young, David (Bolton E)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)



Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Tellers for the Noes:


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Mr. Hugh McCartney.


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a matter that could cause


some hon. Members to miss Divisions. The 24-hour clock on the right hand side of the annunciator seems to be working somewhat variably, and in many cases is completely missing from the screens. That means that hon. Members are not able to obtain information on how long a Division has been progressing. That could be crucial information for an hon. Member who is trying to reach the Chamber. I wonder whether you could arrange to have the matter investigated and corrected.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall arrange for that matter to be seen to.

New Clause 2

THE INDUSTRIAL TRAINING BOARDS' COMBINED PENSION FUND

'The trustees of the Industrial Training Boards' Combined Pension Fund may, with the consent of three quarters of the number of the industrial training boards whose officers and servants are eligible to benefit from the Fund, make such amendments of the rules of the Fund as they think fit.'.—[Mr. Peter Morrison].

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
As the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and other hon. Members will know, under the present rules of the ITB pension fund the trustees need the consent of all the ITBs to any significant change of the rules. Any board, irrespective of size and importance, can veto a change, whether to benefits provided under the scheme, to the procedures for running the fund, or to any other substantive matter covered by the rules. The new clause secures that the trustees need the consent of only three-quarters of the boards to any change in the rules.
The trustees asked us to make that change. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the trustees met yesterday. Seven were present and four were member trustees representing staff, including all the union nominees. They were all in favour of changing the rules in the way proposed. They believe that the change will facilitate their job, particularly at a time when a number of boards may be wound up and some rearrangement of the fund may be needed to ensure viability.
In the normal course of events I would not recommend to the House that we should legislate in this way to vary one provision of what is effectively a voluntary contract. However, this is an unusual case. The unanimity rule, which makes sense for a fund where there is one employer whose agreement to proposals from the trustees should rightly be obtained before there are major changes, is not desirable where there are 24 employers of varying sizes. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that that rule was drawn up before the boards were created.
I would not recommend the change either if I felt that there was a risk that the trustees would seek to act in a way that diminished the rights of boards or their staff. The trustees are themselves nominees of boards and staff. We are providing that they should not be able to change the rules without a three-quarters majority of the board. We believe that those are adequate safeguards. Accordingly, I recommend the new clause.
A possible future problem, of which the right hon. Gentleman will be aware relates to rule 305, which

provides for the subdivision of the fund. On the advice of their actuary, the trustees will want to set up a closed fund for the pensions of staff of boards that may have been wound up, and an open fund for the pensions of the staff of boards that are retained. For a separate fund to be set up, the trustees believe that they need the consent of all boards. It is possible that perhaps one board could completely destroy what was in the minds of the Trustees in the best interests of all those involved. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with that. For that reason, I recommend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Harold Walker: The chairman of the trustees, Mr. Hunter Jones, who is also chairman of the Hotel and Catering Industrial Training Board, wrote to me as long ago as the middle of April about the problem that the Bill had created for the managers of the pension fund It is a matter of regret and legitimate criticism on our part that the new clause appeared on the Amendment Paper only last week. After the lapse of all that time we are left with completely inadequate time to consult those within the fund and those who will be affected by the changes in it.
The matter is extremely technical and difficult. We are dealing with proposals that might affect the retirement provision for many thousands of people. It is also important that the House should bear in mind that the fund is a non-statutory arrangement. It is a voluntary arrangement, freely entered into by the boards and their staffs. It is extremely odd that a Government whose principal argument in favour of the measure has been the superiority of the voluntary arrangements over statutory provisions should now be asking the House to approve a statutory intervention into a totally voluntary arrangement.
The unanimity rule to which the Minister referred was not required by statute, but was agreed by the 24 boards, the trustees of the fund and the eventual beneficiaries of the fund. In the same way in which they freely entered into that arrangement, they should be left freely to change it if it is found that difficulties are likely to arise as a consequence of the Bill.
One can only assume that the changes that are contemplated, about which we have been told nothing, are likely to be objected to by some of the boards. Otherwise there would have been no need for the Minister to seek the change. If some changes were not likely to receive the approbation of the boards, there would be no need for the Government to table the new clause. We are entitled to ask: "What are the changes about which the trustees are so anxious and which they fear may be jeopardised if the change is not made?" We have not been given the answer.
We cannot overlook the point that while the departure from the unanimity rule may be necessary for the changes that the trustees now have in mind, the letter that the Under-Secretary sent to Mr. Hunter Jones on 2 June should be considered. He said then:
The arrangements which I have outlined should appeal to every surviving board"—
the phrase "every surviving board" should be noted—
since the entire cost would otherwise fall to be shared between them. However I accept that the rule could cause difficulty and delay in connection with the winding up of boards and that there is a case for changing the rule on more general grounds.
In other words, the arrangements might be helpful in the future. They would make it easier to change any of the rules.
The House must note that the consent that we are being asked to approve is one that will be given by the boards.
We must not overlook the fact that in that context the boards are the employers. In other words, we are merely being asked to consent to the approval of three-quarters of the employers. The beneficiaries, trade unions and members of staff are being given no say in that matter.
I understand that there are 14 trustees and that only two of them are trade union representatives. I know from my time at the Department that that has been a matter of some anxiety on the part of the trade unions representing the staffs. We are entitled to ask the Minister what consultation took place, before the proposal was put on the Amendment Paper, with the staffs affected or their representatives. Have the unions been consulted?
It is clear that the employers among the trustees, and the boards as employers, can combine to worsen the pension and redundancy provisions that have been secured over the years by collective bargaining. For example, we know that many employers are resentful about the index linking of pension arrangements for the staff. There is no doubt that many of them would anxiously consider a stronger opportunity to break that link in the future. What will be the rights of the ex-employees of the boards that the Ministers are contemplating abolishing and will be defunct? Will they have any say about pension arrangements that will affect future entitlement?
Is there a mechanism to prevent future decisions from having a retrospective effect on ex-employees of boards that have been wound up? Furthermore, what about the three-quarters of the boards that may survive? How can there be three-quarters of 19, 17, 15, seven or five? We are entitled to know what numbers we are talking about.
I recognise that the fund is facing difficulties as a result of what the Government have said, and not least because of something that they had not even touched on. We are talking not merely of straight pension arrangements. There is also the redundancy pension enhancement provision. The Minister may be waiting until we reach amendment No. 14 to say something about the extent to which the Government are prepared to underwrite the sums involved in the redundancy enhancement provision, which will be triggered off the moment that the Secretary of State starts to wield his axe.
I am mindful that there are difficulties, but it is no part of the Opposition's task to help the Government out of the problems that they have created by their unwise measure. Unless we have more convincing statements, notwithstanding what the Minister said about the trustees meeting yesterday, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the new clause.

Mr. Hooley: The new clause is technical, but it concerns an important and sensitive matter. Some employers have been alarmed about the consequencies that the winding up of ITBs will have on pension funds and their responsibilities. The CBI or the chambers of commerce have put a figure of £35 million on the cost to them of a major axeing of the ITBs to preserve pension rights of ITB staff.
The new clause is fairly sweeping.

Mr. Harold Walker: So that there is no misunderstanding, I point out that the letter from Mr. Hunter Jones of 14 April referred to the sum of £35 million only in respect of the provision to which I referred—the

redundancy pension enhancement. It is not the total cost of the accrued pension rights. It is merely that one liability if every board disappeared. Mr. Hunter Jones said:
If every board were to disappear it is estimated that the combined cost of underwriting this particular liability"—
that is the redundancy pension enhancement scheme—
would exceed £35 million.
Doubtless a much greater sum would be required to provide for the whole of the accrued pension fund liabilities.

Mr. Hooley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is a technical matter. The details are complicated and perhaps not widely understood. I do not claim to be competent to argue the details of pension funds.
There is no doubt that employers are profoundly worried about the consequences for pension funds of the winding up of ITBs. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) has spelt out one consequence. The concern may eventually inhibit the mass destruction of the ITBs, which at one stage was contemplated by the Secretary of State and for which he will still have powers under the Bill.
I am not entirely clear whether the three-quarters rule applies to the existing industrial boards or whether it will be three-quarters of those that remain after some have been axed. At what stage does it apply and at what stage does it cease to apply? Can the existing rules be amended on the basis of a three-quarters assent of the existing boards, and subsequently on the basis of assent of the then existing boards, which may by that time have been reduced to eight or nine? It is a sweeping clause, which could have many consequences.
5.45 pm
The Minister hinted that the trade union trustees had no objection to the arrangement. I assure him that the TUC has powerful objections. For example, the combined ITB pension fund rules state that no changes may be made that adversely affect an individual member of the pension fund, which is a common provision in pension fund rules. The protection may have to be changed in the case of ITB employees made redundant when ITBs are wound up or merged, which would be opposed by the affiliated unions.
The new clause would enable the trustees to amend the rules as they thought fit. It gives them absolute, unfettered discretion to make changes once they have the assent of three-quarters of the ITBs. The proportion chosen is curious. I do not have at my finger tips the number of employees of each board or the number of workers for whom they are responsible, but the number varies from millions down to a few thousand. The six biggest boards may dissent, but the 18 smallest ones, with a minority of workers and employers, may agree, and they could overrule the wishes of the largest boards. I cannot understand a provision under which large organisations, with a great many employees, responsible for a wide range of workers, can have their wishes overruled by smaller organisations, which, even combined, do not cover the same number of employers or have the same degree of responsibility.
My other point concerns the voting powers of the trustees. My right hon. Friend said that there were 14 trustees, of which two were trade union nominees. Given the three-quarters rule, does it mean that the rules can be changed by a simple majority of the trustees? Do we need a vote of only seven, plus the casting vote of the chairman,


for the trustees to make a change in the rules? Can they make changes related to indexation of pensions, the level of pension with regard to the number of years of service, and so on?
Pension rules are enormously complicated and important to the people whom they affect. We want to know not only what the safeguards will be for consent by the ITBs but what they are against a small number of trustees —seven out of only 14–fundamentally changing the rules, against possible dissent by seven or even four or five of their colleagues, which would be equally unsatisfactory.
I am concerned about the phrase
such amendments of the rules …as they think fit
in relation to level of pension, indexation, qualifications, qualifying period of service and amount of pension. The whole range of the rules can apparently be amended under the clause, provided that a group of ITBs agree. The House should not enact such a sweeping clause in this form.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I agree that this is a technical and difficult matter, but I assure the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) that, coupled with the money resolution and amendment No. 14, to which we shall come later, this is a genuine attempt to ensure that past, present and future beneficiaries of the ITB pension fund, in the event of those ITBs no longer being in existence, can benefit in full. It is a genuine attempt to ensure that all employees of the pension fund can participate as they have in the past.
I accept entirely that it took a little time, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, as soon as we had formulated the money resolution, the new clause and the amendment we got them to him, so as to give him as much time as possible. It was a complicated matter and I admit that I still find it so.
On the specific point put by both the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend —the number of ITBs that might be left —we rehearsed that argument in Committee and no doubt shall continue to rehearse it today. As my right hon. Friend said in the debate on the earlier new clause, we have come to no decisions. The "three quarters" means exactly what it says. It means that at least 75 per cent. need to vote in favour.
I hope that I made it clear in my opening remarks that the pension fund trustees envisage, on the advice of their actuary, that they will be likely to want to subdivide the fund, to set up a closed fund for the pensions of staff of boards which have been wound up and an open fund for the pensions of staff of boards which are retained. I think that the reasons for that will be obvious.
In the event that one board actually objected to that and the trustees could not do it, as I understand it, they would not see their way to ensuring that the potential beneficiaries could benefit in the way that I think all hon. Members would wish them to benefit. That is why, at the behest of the trustees, we tabled the new clause.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to consultation. As I said in opening the debate, the three trade union representatives were present at yesterday's meeting and wholly concurred with the Government's proposal. When I was originally approached, I assumed that I was being approached on behalf of all the trustees and not just the chairman, so I imagine that consultation had taken place there, too.
In conclusion, I assure the House that we are attempting to do what is best for past, present and indeed future employees of training boards.

Mr. Robert Taylor: The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said that the pensions are index linked. Has there so far been any liability to public funds to top up the fund? I am always told that it is impossible to have a funded index-linked scheme. If there has been no occasion to top up the fund so far, is there any contingent liability upon public funds to do so in future?

Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend will realise, that is a related aspect of amendment No. 14, which we shall reach later. I shall therefore be able to reply to him then.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 187.

Division No. 212]
[5.54 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Alexander, Richard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Ancram, Michael
Fairgrieve, Russell


Arnold, Tom
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Farr, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Fell, Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Biggs-Davison, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Blackburn, John
Fry, Peter


Body, Richard
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bowden, Andrew
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Goodhart, Philip


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodlad, Alastair


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brittan, Leon
Gow, Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Greenway, Harry


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Grist, Ian


Buck, Antony
Grylls, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hannam, John


Butcher, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayhoe, Barney


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hicks, Robert


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hooson, Tom


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Corrie, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Costain, Sir Albert
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Critchley, Julian
Jessel, Toby


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kershaw, Anthony


Dover, Denshore
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Durant, Tony
Knight, Mrs Jill


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lamont, Norman


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Ian






Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lee, John
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Le Merchant, Spencer
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rossi, Hugh


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rost, Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Loveridge, John
Scott, Nicholas


Lyell, Nicholas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


MacGregor, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Shepherd, Richard


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Silvester, Fred


McQuarrie, Albert
Sims, Roger


Madel, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Major, John
Speed, Keith


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Marlow, Tony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sproat, lain


Mather, Carol
Squire, Robin


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mawby, Ray
Steen, Anthony


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Martin


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mayhew, Patrick
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Mellor, David
Stokes, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Tapsell, Peter


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Monro, Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moore, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thompson, Donald


Murphy, Christopher
Thorne, Neil (llford South)


Myles, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Neale, Gerrard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Needham, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Nelson, Anthony
Trippier, David


Neubert, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Newton, Tony
Viggers, Peter


Normanton, Tom
Waddington, David


Onslow, Cranley
Wakeham, John


Osborn, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Waller, Gary


Parkinson, Cecil
Ward, John


Parris, Matthew
Warren, Kenneth


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Percival, Sir Ian
Wheeler, John


Pink, R. Bonner
Whitney, Raymond


Pollock, Alexander
Wickenden, Keith


Porter, Barry
Wilkinson, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Wolfson, Mark


Prior, Rt Hon James
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Younger, Rt Hon George


Pym, Rt Hon Francis



Rathbone, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. John Cope and


Renton, Tim
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.


Rhodes James, Robert





NOES


Adams, Allen
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Allaun, Frank
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Buchan, Norman


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)


Bennett, Andrew (Sf'kp't N)
Campbell, Ian


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Carmichael, Neil


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bradley, Tom
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)





Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Cohen, Stanley
McCartney, Hugh


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Conlan, Bernard
McElhone, Frank


Cook, Robin F.
McKelvey, William


Cowans, Harry
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Craigen, J. M.
McTaggart, Robert


Crowther, J. S.
Magee, Bryan


Cryer, Bob
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dalyell, Tam
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Deakins, Eric
Maxton, John


Dempsey, James
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dewar, Donald
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Dixon, Donald
Mikardo, Ian


Dobson, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dormand, Jack
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dubs, Alfred
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Dunn, James A.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Morton, George


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


English, Michael
Newens, Stanley


Ennals, Rt Hon David
O'Halloran, Michael


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
O'Neill, Martin


Evans, John (Newton)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ewing, Harry
Palmer, Arthur


Faulds, Andrew
Parry, Robert


Field, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Fitch, Alan
Penhaligon, David


Flannery, Martin
Prescott, John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Richardson, Jo


Ford, Ben
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Forrester, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Foster, Derek
Robertson, George


Foulkes, George
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Rooker, J. W.


George, Bruce
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Golding, John
Sandelson, Neville


Gourlay, Harry
Sheerman, Barry


Graham, Ted
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Grant, John (Islington C)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Silverman, Julius


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Snape, Peter


Haynes, Frank
Soley, Clive


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Spearing, Nigel


Heffer, Eric S.
Spriggs, Leslie


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Stallard, A. W.


Home Robertson, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Homewood, William
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hooley, Frank
Stoddart, David


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Stott, Roger


Howells, Geraint
Strang, Gavin


Huckfield, Les
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Janner, Hon Greville
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


John, Brynmor
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Tilley, John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Kerr, Russell
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Kilfedder, James A.
Wainwright, H.(Colne V)


Lamond, James
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Leighton, Ronald
Welsh, Michael


Lestor, Miss Joan
White, Frank R.


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Whitehead, Phillip


Litherland, Robert
Whitlock, William


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wigley, Dafydd


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)






Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H,ton)



Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Tellers for the Noes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Woodall, Alec
Mr. Joseph Dean


Woolmer, Kenneth

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

EFFECTIVE TRAINING ORGANISATIONS

'(1) Before exercising his powers under section 9(1) of the Industrial Training Act 1964 to amend or revoke an industrial training order, the Minister shall:—

(a) publish criteria to define the activities of an effective training organisation as set out in sub-section (2) below;
(b) ensure that an effective training organisation exists for each sector of industry covered by that Board, which is capable of fulfilling the criteria set out in subsection (2) below; and
(c) publish an industrial training order, (as provided for in section 1 (1) of the Industrial Training Act 1964), to cover the activities of the effective training organisation in each sector.

(2) Each effective training organisation must:

(a) Establish a training body representative of employers and trade unions in the sector and of educational bodies closely concerned with the sector, which is capable of:—

(i) representing their industry to the Manpower Services Commission and other Government Departments;
(ii) being accountable to the sector, to Parliament and to the Manpower Services Commission for its activities;
(iii) defining training standards for all occupational activities in the sector and identifying training initiatives, in consultation with the industry;
(iv) collecting and maintaining manpower information for the industry; and
(v) carrying out the agreed training strategies for the industry linked to overall Government training objectives.

(b) Employ a sufficient nucleus of professional training staff who can, together with appropriate administrative support, achieve the training objectives laid down by the training body;

(c) Undertake consultation with employers and relevant trade unions to seek a consensus in support of the implementation of training activities in the sector;

(d) Demonstrate that it has a continuing capability to raise finance to undertake and complete the agreed training strategies identified by the Training Body, to provide training advice consultancy and direct training services requested by the sector, and to act as an agency for channelling Government funds for training to the sector;

(e) Maintain the necessary manpower and financial resources to accredited company training schemes and assess company training achievements, and to operate systems for certifying existing and future training standards, where necessary;

(f) In conjunction with employers, the relevant trade unions, appropriate educational bodies and educational establishments, provide and monitor training programmes relevant to needs of the sector with nationally acceptable qualifications at the outcome of these programmes, guaranteed—

(i) by adequate links with local school and educational facilities, and

(ii) by access to physical premises of employers in the industry.

(g) Maintain adequate local, national and cross sectoral links to ensure the transferability of appropriate skills and to meet the skill requirements of new technologies. '.—[Mr. Penhaligon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House if we take with this new clause 4—Alternative organisations.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It will be noted that the new clause, as well as being in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends, is also in the names of right hon. and hon. Members for almost every national political party in the House of Commons. The clause is about training, and my premise for proposing it is that I believe that we have a dramatically under-skilled nation.
One of the great ironies of the current position is that, of the 2 ½million registered unemployed, only a small percentage have any substantial skill to offer a prospective employer.
Sponsored training today is dominated by Government schemes, whether they be under the youth opportunities programme or work experience on employer's premises, to the extent of 440,000 places in the next 12 months. I do not believe that these represent real long-term training or that they will provide the people concerned with skills that will be useful to them for the rest of their lives, even if, in the current circumstances most of us will admit that they may serve some useful purpose.
As we see it from the Liberal Benches, the Bill without amendment gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to tamper with the present arrangements for training. The industrial training boards are often too bureaucratic and there are too many of them, but they are in a unique position to identify manpower trends within each industrial sector. They can and do use their tripartite meetings to establish training programmes to meet training needs. We believe that they should not be simply swept away, and that we should not pass legislation that enables a Minister to sweep them away.
The Government say that they would like to increase the voluntary approach to training. We take the view that there is something to be said for that. Volunteers are always better than pressed men, but in area training pressed men are perhaps better than no men at all. The theory is that the powers given to the Minister in the Bill will lead to a substantial reduction in both quality and quantity of training. We submit that the nation cannot afford that, and cannot afford taking the risk that it may happen.

Mr. Hooley: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about volunteers being better than pressed men. Does he agree that professionals are usually better than amateurs?

Mr. Penhaligon: I accept that, although it does not seem to be relevant. One can have professionals under either arrangement. But I still take the view that pressed men in training are probably better than no men at all.
The new clause is not designed to stop reorganisation but to make sure that any reorganisation that takes place is as least as good as that which existed previously, and preferably better.
Before the Secretary of State can dismiss an industrial training board, he must, under the new clause, carry out several functions. First, he must define the criteria by which an effective training organisation—whether statutory or voluntary—is to be judged. Secondly, he must satisfy Parliament that there are good reasons for winding up the industrial training board and that an acceptable


alternative exists in each industrial sector to oversee training to meet existing and projected manpower needs. Thirdly, he must ensure that Parliament maintains a means to monitor industrial training and to make adjustments in the national interest.
The remainder of the new clause defines a training organisation. Such an organisation must include employers, trade unions and associated educational bodies. It must be capable of representing industry to the Manpower Services Commission and to other Government bodies and it must be accountable to its own sector. It must define training standards and identify training initiatives in consultation with industry. It must collect and maintain manpower information for its own industry. It must carry out agreed training strategies for the industry, linked to the Government's overall training objectives. It must demonstrate that it has the continuing capacity to raise the necessary finance. In consultation with other relevant bodies, it must develop a nationally acceptable system of qualifications.
Given that those criteria are fulfilled, if the Secretary of State should choose to change to a voluntary system we would have no reason to oppose that. Indeed, it could be argued that such a system might be better than the present arrangements, because it would be voluntary and would, at the same time, maintain all that is good in the present system. One would hope that that would improve the situation.
To my knowledge, this is the first new clause to be tabled that has the signed support of members of the Conservative, Labour, Liberal and Social Democratic Parties. In itself, that is a reason for closely examining the provisions. Before I became a Member of Parliament I worked in industry. I served my time as a fitter and turner apprentice. Admittedly that was some years ago, but I have served my time in a factory. Those who have firsthand knowledge of unemployment and of its character fear that if the Government's prediction of an upturn in the economy is right—even if some of us think that such optimism is not justified, let us be optimistic for a moment —there is still no reason to believe that the level of skills among the unemployed will enable such an upturn to succeed.
Bad as the situation is, we fear that if the Bill is passed without the protection that I have outlined we might land up with an even worse system than the present one. The current Secretary of State is unlikely to approve of something that would make the situation worse. However, there is no guarantee that the right hon. Gentleman will hold that job for ever. Indeed, most of us read the newspapers regularly and find it surprising that he has held his job for so long. There is no guarantee that he will hold it for ever.
We seek a minimum level of protection in order to ensure that training does not deteriorate from its currently inadequate level. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Adley: I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). My position accords almost entirely with the Government's thinking and not with the views of some of my hon. Friends, who would like a wide-ranging reduction—if not a destruction—of the function and role of training boards.
The hon. Member for Truro criticised the Bill on the ground that it gave the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to tamper with the present structure. That is exactly what we need. There should be substantial tampering with some of our training boards. My concern about the new clause involves not its motivation, but its effect and drafting. I shall deal with a narrow point, because I should not like the House or the country to think that because the new clause has the well-advertised support that the hon. Gentleman has given it, it has gained automatic entry into the sunny uplands of industrial efficiency and harmony as we near the end of the twentieth century.
One or two phrases in the new clause show a laissez-faire attitude towards and understanding of, the establishment of the training boards and of training itself. I declare an interest as a member of the National Council of the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association and as marketing director of Commomwealth Holiday Inns of Canada Limited. I wish to restrict my remarks to the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board and to the new clause's effect on it. The industry may not be a typical example, but neither is it untypical of some of the industries for which training boards have been created.
New clause 3(2)(a) states:
Establish a training body representative of employers and trade unions in the sector".
There is in that phrase a dangerous assumption that should be challenged—that only trade unions can represent the views of employees. That is not so. The hon. Member for Truro must have many small companies in his constituency for which that proposition does not hold good.
The HCITB is an example of a training board that suffers from unrepresentative membership. I submit that that situation would be enshrined rather than tackled if the new clause were accepted. The HCITB has 21 members. Two are from the General and Municipal Workers Union, two are from the Transport and General Workers Union, one is from the National Union of Railwaymen, one is from the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, one is from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and five come from the Government bureaucracy. By that I mean that three come from the Department of Education and Science and two from the Scottish Education Department. Thus, 12 of the 21 members are members of trade unions or of the bureaucracy.
I wish to consider the industry that the board is supposed to represent, to see whether there is fair and sensible representation. There is not. If one takes the organisations that are within the HCITB's scope, there are 1,709,000 employees in the industry, of whom only 85,000 are trade union members. That is about 5 per cent.
Many of that 5 per cent. are union members only because of the closed shop agreement that exists between British Transport Hotels, the NUR and the TSSA. That is a clear example of representation that is unrelated to the realities of the industry that the board is supposed to serve. The new clause would exacerbate a situation that some of us would like to change.
If the training boards are to function properly they must have the respect of the industries involved. Respect can flow only if membership of the board involved bears a relationship to the reality on the ground and to the extent and role of trade unionism in a particular industry.
I do not wish to raise the temperature of the debate, but for many years the trade unions in the hotel and catering industry have tried —but significantly failed —to establish a foothold. I understand that Grand Metropolitan Hotels, with 28 per cent. of its employees trade union members, has the largest percentage of trade union membership among companies in the British hotel industry.
Trust Houses Forte is the largest hotel group in Britain and it has a mere 4 per cent. of employees in union membership, despite substantial attempts over the years by the unions to obtain membership.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman must not expect to get away with that. Will he confirm that many hotels and catering establishments have not only refused to recognise trade unions but have penalised and dismissed employees for membership of unions? One immediately thinks of the notorious Garners Steak Houses as one example. We could give more.

Mr. Adley: That accusation is frequently made but rarely substantiated. In my current working knowledge of the industry, most responsible companies believe that they have made a fair offer to the various unions, namely, "You prove to us that in a secret ballot you can obtain membership of 50 per cent or more of the work people at any establishment and we will regard the union as the legitimate body to negotiate."
My experience in the industry is that many people are more frightened of being in a union than of being out of a union. The picture that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to paint is not realistic. There may be a handful of rogue employers in this industry, as in any industry, but to suggest that that is a universal pattern is unsubstantiable and inaccurate.
I propose to the hon. Member for Truro and those supporting the new clause that it tries to enshrine rigid and old-fashioned attitudes towards the rights of employees. I will not weary the House by reading the clause, as it is a long one, but it sets up the Secretary of State as a corporate nanny for British industry. In all honesty, and with the greatest respect to the Secretary of State, I do not believe that he or any Government are necessarily best fitted to fulfil the role of arbiter on what does or does not constitute a good training board or a good pattern or model of training for any industry.
I want the employees in industries that are not heavily unionised to be represented by people selected other than through the trade union establishment. I am told that that presents great difficulties, although I have never been able to understand why.
If one wants to find representatives of employees, it is not beyond the wit of man to find people either through advertising, in the case of the hotel industry through the Caterer and Hotelkeeper or the Catering Times. One could consult the trade bodies such as the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association or some of the smaller bodies which would be willing to make nominations. One can advertise, like anyone else, to find the right man for the job.
I oppose the wording, if not the spirit, of the new clause. It is old-fashioned and couched in old-fashioned language and would not be helpful to the general proposition that we believe in good training. Many of the present boards, to use the words of the hon. Member for Truro, need to be tampered with widely. For that reason I am not prepared to support the new clause.

Mr. Penhaligon: The hon. Member is unlike some of his colleagues, who would like to see statutory training abolished. But what protection is there in the Bill to maintain minimum standards? Secretaries of State come and go and attitudes change. We perhaps have not done it perfectly—that would be surprising—but we have tried to introduce a safety net below which standards cannot drop.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman gives his case away when he says that Secretaries of State come and go. No Government can legislate for their successors. I have the greatest confidence in my right hon. Friend. The Bill, as it came out of the Committee, on which I had the honour to serve, will enable industry generally to equip itself far better to cope with the problems of training than at present. The new clause may sound grand, as it does, but, for the reasons that I have given on this rather narrow point, I do not think that it would be helpful.

Mr. Hooley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that we are discussing new clause 4 with new clause 3. At what point may I move new clause 4?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may speak to his new clause. I may call him in due course to move it.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) may have confidence in his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but he must ask himself whether he thinks the proposals enshrined in the Bill will be of any value to industrial training.
I support the new clause, because I believe that it is correct. It attempts to ensure that proper training is given. As the House knows, I am concerned with the furniture industry. The Furniture Industry Training Board has been a shining example. It is an excellent board and has done tremendous work. It has the confidence of both sides of the industry. It would be a disaster if it were to be destroyed purely for political dogma.
Everyone is considering how to resolve the problems if the industrial training boards are destroyed. My industry has a history of danger. Few people working in it do not at some time have a bad accident. The industrial training boards have done a remarkable amount of work in helping to prevent such accidents by good training and ensuring that good practices are inculcated upon young people and that mature workers are trained. The result is that the accident rate has been reduced substantially.
That could have happened at any time; it did not need an industrial training board to do it. But for year after year, decade after decade, the private employer did not do it. There was nothing to stop his doing it, but he did not do it. Only with the advent of industrial training boards was this matter taken up, primarily because it needed organisation. It needed skilled manpower and, above all, resources. The private employer was not prepared to devote money to it, because he did not have the organisation and the necessary skills.
If the present system is destroyed, why does the hon. Gentleman believe that we have all learnt so much and that the employer who in past years has refused to take action will now be prepared to take it?

Mr. Adley: The hon. Member will recall that a Conservative Government set up the training boards.
Those of us who support the Bill believe that some of the boards do a good job and, by general consent, some do not do a good job. Therefore, there is a need for change. The Bill seeks to create a framework for that change.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and excellent point, but why must he refer to political issues? We are talking about the importance and role of industrial training in industry. He has spoilt his case. I do not care who set up the boards—we are discussing their destruction.

Mr. Adley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Brown: It is no good the hon. Gentleman disagreeing. The whole ethos of the Bill is the destruction of industrial training boards. The furniture industry is so sure that a disastrous situation is upon it that it is seeking alternatives. That is disastrous.
The furniture industry is a small, cottage industry. There are thousands of small employers employing fewer than 50 people. One does not have to hold a BSc (Hons) degree to understand the problems of trying to co-ordinate proper training schemes, as is now undertaken by the industrial training board, if it is all handed over to the voluntary system. The voluntary system has always existed, but it has never worked.
I have read the reports of the Committee proceedings closely. On Second reading I intervened. Perhaps someone will give me an explanation now. If we destroy the value of what we have —albeit it may need improving —why is it argued that there will be a great opportunity to return to a voluntary system that did not work before?
I want the provisions of a voluntary system to be spelt out. Whoever does so should take the furniture industry as an example. I invite him to come to Hackney Road in my constituency and view the tiny hovels in which furniture work is carried on. It is impossible to establish trade unions in them, let alone voluntary training schemes. I have tried to get the public health inspector in so that he can do something.
6.30 pm
If Conservative Members believe that in such circumstances employers will be prepared to say "Marvellous; I have been waiting all my life to contribute to a voluntary scheme", they are living in a world of fantasy. They must therefore explain how this voluntary scheme will happen.
The British furniture manufacturers work closely with my own union, the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trade Union, which I represent. In that sense I declare my interest. There has been harmony. We have improved standards and safety, yet the British furniture manufacturers are saying that they will attempt to establish a regional organisation. It is possible to do that in High Wycombe or other areas where the furniture industry is concentrated, but it is not possible in the broad context of the furniture industry.
The furniture manufacturers are well aware of the problem that existed previously. The good furniture manufacturer has always attempted to carry out training. He has always attempted to share his benefits with others. They whole-heartedly supported the establishment of industrial training boards because it meant that everyone would pay his share. Previously the good employer

undertook the training and the bad employer offered a halfpenny an hour more and took away the skilled worker. He cheated rather than paid his whack for the training. That could once again become a problem, and the furniture manufacturers know it.
Secondly, who will set the criteria? There will be problems arising on the criteria which the MSC seeks. There will have to be field personnel and statistical research and information. We shall have to identify the skill shortages and appoint administrative personnel. How will all that be carried out on a voluntary basis in an industry such as the furniture industry? It has taken that industry all its time to keep its head above water. We are trying desperately to retain a furniture industry in Britain, that must compete against cheap imports from Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and even America. Recliner chairs are now coming into Britain at a price which would not even pay for the materials used by the British furniture industry, let alone for the manufacture of the product.
The industry is desperately trying to keep its head above water, yet at this moment of crisis the Government are saying that they will get rid of the industrial training boards and make the employers responsible not only for the training but for the establishment of the organisation and the skilled personnel.
The skilled personnel employed by the industrial training boards are extremely worried. They do not know what to do. They are now looking for alternatives. The danger is not only that we shall fail to provide the means for training but, more importantly, that there will be no training at all. The Government must face that issue tonight. Unless the new clause is accepted, there is no doubt that training in industries such as the furniture industry will disappear. Only the good furniture manufacturer will be able to continue training, and that will be on a reduced scale.
I appreciate that the wording of the new clause may not be as good as wording produced by the efforts of the parliamentary draftsmen. Perhaps it needs tarting up, but there is another place in which that can be done. However, the Government should accept the principles enshrined in the new clause. The ethos of the argument is that someone must be resposible for the training and organisation and that everyone should share in the cost of training. Unless we accept that, the furniture industry in particular will go to the wall.

Mr. Jim Lester: I welcome the chance to explain why I support the spirit of the new clause and the way in which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) spoke. He made it clear that there was all-party support for the new clause, and he moved it constructively. It is designed to improve the Bill. In that sense, it is not a negative new clause.
The new clause is similar to a new clause tabled in Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) and for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) which was not discussed. It is on that broad basis that one approaches it.
It is essential to establish two things as we go through the exercise set up two and a half years ago by the last Administration. First, it is essential to retain the confidence of the many people who work for the industry training boards and who have done much since 1964 to


improve training standards. We all accept that standards vary, but we equally accept that training, while not ideal, is now much better than in 1964.
I pay tribute to the many people on the ground. Those hon. Members who have accompanied the industrial advisers have seen how they are accepted in the factories and welcomed for the contribution that they have made. I pay tribute to them. It is essential that we hold their confidence during this critical time of the final review.
The speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) showed that the Government must still convince many people that they are genuine in their desire to improve training and that they are not going for change merely for the sake of change or simply indulging in a negative financial exercise. It is important that the Government make it clear that they place as high a priority on skilled training in the future as they have in the past.
To retain the confidence of those involved in training and to hold the confidence of many people throughout industry who are concerned about training, we must establish criteria that are as objective as possible and which command the widest agreement and consensus both in the House and outside.
Although the new clauses may not be ideally drafted, they establish that principle. They reflect the importance of using criteria that are judged by all to be fair and progressive. That is the spirit in which I added my name to new clause 3. It is important that such a feeling should emanate from the House tonight. There is still wide distrust that concern that "voluntary" could mean a return to the very conditions that caused a Conservative Government to pass the original Act in 1964. None of us wants that. We all want to see things improve.
It is in that spirit that one recommends the principle of the new clause My right hon. Friend will have to exercise the wisdom of Solomon once he receives the report of the Manpower Services Commission review. The new clause is meant to be helpful to him in that it establishes criteria, which he knows have the widest support both inside and outside the House, on which he can make that judgment.

Mr. Hooley: I take it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am in order in speaking to the substance of new clause 4 even though the House is not formally discussing it. One of the curiosities of the Bill is that not long before its introduction the Manpower Services Commission, which was created by a Conservative Government, carried out a wide-ranging review of the operation of the Employment and Training Act 1973. It produced a report called "Outlook on Training", which discussed with great thoroughness what it thought were the strengths and weaknesses of the ITB system. The report contained 27 recommendations and a number of sub-recommendations relating to how the system should develop.
The last thing that one could argue from the report was that any power should be given to any Government to scrap industrial training boards. On the contrary, a vast number of recommendations suggested ways in which the operation of our training system should be strengthened. In case anyone believes that the proposals, in new clauses 3 and 4 are airy-fairy notions that hon. Members have produced without any reference to the actuality of the situation, I would point out that new clause 4–it is in

many ways a slightly more succinct statement of new clause 3–spells out a great many of the recommendations which the MSC review produced.
I find it odd that the Government should askk the MSC to carry out another review, presumably to try to justify the provisions and intentions of the Bill. I should like to examine the review carried out by the MSC before this misconceived Bill was produced. I suspect that most hon. Members are already aware that the review body comprised highly experienced people from industry, the trade unions and education. They include Mr. Downing, Secretary of the CBI manpower services advisory panel, Mr. Berry, director of the Coventry and District Engineering Employers Association, leading trade union figures, the director of education of the metropolitan borough of Sandwell and other education figures.
It was a substantial review body, and it took evidence from about 400 different organisations —employer organisations, trade unions, education organisations, training boards and many other organisations, including Government Departments. The document that it produced is substantial and authorititive. Nowhere does it suggest that powers of the kind that the Bill proposes should be given to the Secretary of State. Given the fact that the Bill will probably be enacted because of the Whipping power of the Government and the majority that they enjoy, it is proper that the House should endeavour to include a clause along the lines of new clause 3 or new clause 4.
I wish to point out ways in which the provisions of new clause 4 square with the recommendations of the MSC review body. An example is the proposal in subsection (2) (a) of the new clause to maintain and collect manpower information in a particular industry. The review body, in recommendation 5(f), say that it is necessary to secure
the provision of reliable and consistent manpower intelligence.
In recommendation 19 the review body says that it is necessary to ensure that
information is collected on a common or compatible basis where a number of different industries are involved with training problems.
That is sensible. However, if the statutory organisation of the ITBs is abandoned, or if some sort of organisation is not put in the place of an ITB, as new clause 4 requires, it is difficult to see how information on manpower can be collected on a common or compatible basis, as the MSC review body recommended.
It is not clear to me how any sensible statistics will be obtained for the Government on the need for skills and how to meet that need if the whole apparatus of industrial training boards is scrapped. It will be impossible to have sensible intelligence and manpower planning if the statutory apparatus is undermined or destroyed. New clause 4(2)(a) is four-square with the recommendations of the MSC review body. New clause 4(2)(b) deals with the need to represent industry to the Manpower Services Commission and other Government Departments. This matter was covered by recommendation 6 of the review body, which talked about
the obligation to develop better ways of consulting interested groups in relation to training policies
and suggested that work should be set in hand to devise the most appropriate means of achieving that aim.
I should have thought it was obvious that Government Departments need some established bodies that they can consult about training requirements. Obviously, the Manpower Services Commission is the central body. No one seriously suggests that the MSC can take


responsibility for the entire range of industry and the 13 million workers covered by the ITBs. Clearly another tier is needed, represented by the ITBs. If, however, the ITBs are to be scrapped, something will have to be put in their place. The notion that employers voluntarily will race to put something in their place is nonsense. The Conservatives accepted that argument 17 years ago when they enacted the 1964 Act.
The question of funding to meet industry's training needs was covered by recommendation 8 of the MSC review body, which said:
ITBs should continue to have powers to raise levy.
I agree that the review body also suggested that the operating costs should be returned to industry, as the

Government now suggest, although the proposal was not well received by the CBI. The review body indicated that there had to be some clear and consistent statutory means for raising the money to fund training schemes. That is the intention of new clause 4(2)(c).
Subsection (2)(d) deals with the need to carry out an industry training strategy linked to overall Government objectives and mentions the system of unified vocational preparation. This aspect is covered by recommendations 24 and 25 of the MSC review. Recommendation 25 states:
In order to extend vocational preparation for young people, the MSC should pay key training grants to employers who participate in UVP-type schemes,
and it goes on to talk about co-operation with colleges of education and so on.
Paragraph (e) refers to the provision of a nucleus of professional training staff. I suppose that the Government would argue that employers can do that. The big employers probably would, but then we are back to the old position that where large employers provide professional training staff and undertake training, the men and women they train are poached by other employers and there is no fairness.
Paragraph (f) refers to
conducting full consultation and having the backing of a large majority of the employers in their industry".
The Manpower Services Commission thought that that was necessary, because it referred to full consultation with both sides of industry about public involvement in training. If there is to be sensible consultation with employers in industry, there must be a framework for it. It is not possible to send a circular to 2,000 firms every three months to find out their views on particular training or manpower issues. It is much more sensible to have an industrial training board on which the employers can be represented and which can act as a channel for the employers to express their views to the trade unions within their industry and to the Government.
Paragraph (h) refers to
creating a system of nationally acceptable qualifications at the outcome of their courses guaranteed—

(i) by access to physical premises which are adequate fox the industry, and
quote>(ii) by the provision of adequate links with local educational facilities".

That is extremely important. While training in a general sense is valuable in itself, unless there is an accepted level of testing, and unless there is a guarantee that at the end of the day the boys and girls will pass a test or take a certificate that is accepted anywhere in the United Kingdom, the system is inadequate. There must be an organisation to ratify the certificate or the test that is given and make sure that it is generally acceptable nationwide. If there is no industrial training board, another organisation must be set up to produce this agreed system of training, agreed certification and agreed validation of the qualifications that the boys or girls achieve; and we might just as well retain the industrial training boards for that and other purposes.
Paragraph (j) refers to the need to maintain close consultation with relevant trade unions. That is a matter of common sense. Certainly the MSC review body took the view that that was essential.
Finally, in clause 4, there is mention of maintaining local, regional and cross-sectional links, and this, too, is covered by the recommendations of the MSC review body.
If the Government go ahead with the Bill and use their powers to dissolve the ITBs it is essential, on all the evidence produced by employers, trade unions, education authorities and independent observers, that some organisation is put in its place to preserve the training for skills, which tie country desperately needs.
If the Government say that they do not intend to wind up the ITBs, what is the justification for the Bill? There is no justification for the Bill unless the Government intend substantially to attack the existing industrial training structure. It is nonsense that we should have hours of debate in the House and in Committee, a financial resolution and the whole authority of the Bill to change the entire system if the Government say that they do not mean

it, that they do not intend anything drastic and are waiting for a review. If that is so, they should have not introduced the Bill.
If the Government are determined to take these wide-ranging powers for this Secretary of State or another one —we do not know how long the right hon. Gentleman will survive in his present post —the proposals contained in new clause 3 or new clause 4, or a combination of the two, are a fundamental and necessary safeguard. The whole apparatus of industrial training on a statutory basis enacted by a Conservative Government in 1964 and in 1973 and put into operation by two successive Labour Governments should not be swept away without safeguards such as those set out in these clauses, because if it is infinite damage will be done to the basic economy of the country.

Dr. Keith Hampson: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) spoke of "tampering" with the industrial training boards. I would prefer to tamper with them, provided that we ended up with more efficient training, rather than to abolish them. I am sorry to say that the Conservative Party has a track record of abolishing systems, rather than remoulding them. Time and again we have gone in for massive organisational changes, regardless of whether those changes produced better quality. We have only to think of water, local government, and health. I would hate the Conservatives to destroy this training system, when it can be remodelled.
Companies and trade associations have bombarded us with criticisms of training boards. Some boards are much better than others; some training advisers are much better than others. There are bound to be criticisms of any system. If, in addition to asking companies whether they have criticisms of training boards and what they are, they are asked whether they want to fund the cost of training out of their own pockets, they will become hypercritical, and that is what has happened.
We have been deluged with criticisms of the training boards, because we have suggested that the companies pay. That fact has highlighted all the criticisms. Companies have, therefore, opted for voluntary systems. I am sceptical of that. If companies want a voluntary system so as to get training on the cheap, we must question the whole premise of the operation, because we are in the business of getting better training, not poorer quality and cheaper training.

Mr. John Townend: My hon. Friend is not putting forward the view that cheaper training always means inferior training, is he? In many industries training was adequate before the introduction of training boards. When they were introduced training continued, with the addition of a lot of bureaucracy, which put up the cost.

Dr. Hampson: I do not deny that there is a lot of bureaucracy. That is one of my major criticisms of the system. The great value of our training system is the cutting edge, the people who are out and about dealing with the companies, the training advisers. The bulk of the bureaucracy lies not in the training boards, particularly riot at that cutting edge; it lies with the Manpower Services Commission.
My worry is that if we have only voluntary boards and training is left to the industries and the trade associations we shall end up, almost inexorably, by giving the


Manpower Services Commission a bigger job, because the commission will insist on more and more scrutiny of the voluntary system. How else can a voluntary system be held to the standards unless it is subjected to the scrutiny of the MSC? I would not like to see that.
If that happened, instead of training advisers and people from the industry going round the companies, the bureaucrats from the MSC would be going round, and that would be worse than the system that we have now. There is a danger that one would simply whet the appetitie of the Manpower Services Commission, which is, I agree, a menace from the bureaucratic point of view —apart from the special programme division, for which I have a lot of time.
7 pm
What I was going to add is relevant to my hon. Friend's point. Before this system was established, even before the '70s, many companies had effective training. Many big companies, such as ICI, obviously still do. The boards will not be able to contribute to the efforts and the stance taken on training by those companies.
Some companies tell us that they would like to see a change, on the basis that what we have is no longer relevant and has served its purpose. Many admit that there was some value in the system but argue that it is no longer relevant. Why not? The needs of the nation in terms of skill acquisition have grown, not diminshed. One has only to look at Japan, Germany and various other countries to see that they are developing more and more sophisticated systems. They are not leaving it to companies to do what they like.
We are in an internationally competitive market. We are competing not just for goods and market places for those goods, but for training. We are in competition for skills. If we cannot match the skills of our competitior nations we will suffer as a marketing and producing nation.
Those who attack the system may want voluntary boards, but if we are not careful voluntary boards will have no teeth. Nobody likes tigers with teeth. That is the relevance of the new clause, so I put my name to it, although it is too rigid and has important gaps. If we are to change the system, I want to see a mixed system with some statutory provision as well as some voluntary boards. There have to be guidelines and ground rules, or the boards will be tigers with no teeth and the training will be the poorer.
Two things are vital: first, the definition and the maintenance of training standards; secondly —there is a growing consensus on this —much more of a local dimension in training. The more we try to develop our youth programmes into semi-training programmes instead of having young people counting lamp-posts in Barnsley, the more important it is to have a localised operation to ensure that work experience is available for the numbers of young people involved.
We need that dimension, but we also need a matrix. We cannot get away with only a local dimension, because we must have national training standards. Therefore, a sectoral role is involved as well. So one key aspect is the setting and maintenance of those national standards.
The crux of some of the remarks that I have made is that the voluntary bodies must have field staff. Like my hon.

Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) I have gone around talking to boards, and not just to the bosses of the boards who sit in offices. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) may be interested to hear that I went with a training adviser to a furniture company in Warrington, as it happens; this was before anything dramatic happened in that part of the world! I was impressed to see that it was not a policing role that the training adviser was engaged in but a partnership. He was helping a small company. He was invited to board meetings because he had proved himself to be of help.
When one talks about training, it is easy, as I have done many times, to focus on the training of apprentices or of people on the shop floor, but it is also about the training of managers, especially men who may have been in big companies and who have branched out to take risks on their own. They may not have the necessary skills; they need somebody to show them where the courses are and to give them help in their own companies on the basis of experience. That was happening in the company that I visited. There was a real partnership.
For many years —for centuries —the British nation has been obsessed with amateurism. It is felt that somehow we can all get by and "learn from our mistakes". This is a cliche in the English language. But most people do not learn; they go on making mistakes and they actually make worse mistakes. Therefore, help should be provided for managers in small companies. The sort of partnership relationship that I saw is fruitful and important, but it does not happen everywhere. Not all training advisers have that relationship with companies, and not all training boards work in that way.

Mr. Gary Waller: Does my hon. Friend agree that the role of the training boards can be especially useful in some of the more traditional industries where things have always been done the same way? I am thinking particularly of wool textiles, a traditional industry. I recently visited the training board for wool textiles and was impressed by the progressive influence that it is exercising in that old industry, where things have been done one way for years.

Dr. Hampson: My hon. Friend reinforces the point I was making. What I saw in the furniture board was an ideal working relationship, but that does not mean that it applies across all boards. That is why we need something, such as these clauses which require that the system has training advisers and field staff who have been recruited from the industry, to help build up the necessary relationship.
The Bill will provide the framework for change. We have yet to see what the eventual system will be, but I should not like it to be as it is with some of the existing voluntary boards. The local government board and the insurance industry board do not have field staff or an effective relationship. Those boards hold plenty of courses —which are often simply junkets. No one can guarantee that what people learn on those courses, if they learn anything, will be of any relevance or use when they return to their jobs. It is easy to set up a system to produce hoops through which companies can jump easily by sending a handful of young people or workers on a course or two and so meet the requirement. That is not the provision that I wish to see.
I have one criticism. The new clause, like the debate, is too narrowly focused on ITBs. We should not think of the nation's training only in the context of whether we retain or abolish the existing industry training boards.
The new dimension, which all hon. Members increasingly recognise, is what is becoming known as vocational preparation. There must be not just specified skilled training, but a broader approach. Whatever system we establsh must take account of that. Many of the boards have moved into this area. Some have been very good with schemes that try to bridge the gap between industry and education. Other boards have been slower.
Attitudes vary within the boards. Some people accept the traditional view that the boards were geared and acountable to the industry and had to meet the skilled training needs, of that industry, and that was the end of their responsibility. I should like to believe that we have gone beyond that and that the Government are seeking to use the boards in the broader dimension of vocational preparation.
If we are to go for vocational preparation, providing work experience and related courses for the mass of young people after they leave school, what is the point of setting up an entirely new apparatus, more bureaucracy to run it and yet another system when there is a system already on the ground in the ITBs, however imperfect it may be? The nucleus is there, with people out and about in the companies. They must talk to the companies and get them to involve themselves with the vocational preparation programmes.
In whatever guidelines are established by the Government for a voluntary or semi-voluntary system the key must be that they are involved in the local matrix, interlocked with other boards and agencies in the area, such as the careers service and the local education authority, dovetailing in so that we get effective vocational preparation programmes.
As I said at the start, organisational change in itself means nothing. It cannot guarantee improved quality. We should look with flexibility and sensitivity at what we have on the ground and seek to improve it, rather than throw it all out of the window.

Mr. David Ennals: The test of the integrity of the Government's commitment to industrial training —I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman's integrity —will be in their reply to this debate, because it has been interesting to see the way in which the new clauses have been framed and the course that the debate has taken.
I was involved in drafting a new clause, only to discover when I sought to table it that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) had tabled a motion in similar terms. I discovered later that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Healey (Mr. Hooley) had drafted another motion in similar terms. Moreover, there is little difference between new clauses 3 and 4. They deal with the same principles, the same commitments and the same types of guidelines that we believe are necessary and which I feel that the Secretary of State would want to see in operation.
It is interesting, too, to note that members of all four national parties have associated themselves with new clause 3. That is also true of this debate. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), who properly declared his interest in the hotel and catering

industries, criticised the new clause on what I feel was a very narrow basis. It is true that trade union representation in the catering industry is not as good as I or the Secretary of State would wish. The Secretary of State himself said that when workers are in difficulties they should be members of trade unions. He has never doubted that. Moreover, there has been a good deal of exploitation in the catering industry. Therefore, I view that as a narrow criticism.
The Government should say whether they are really committed to the vital principle that we must expand training facilities both now and during the next 10 or 15 years rather than contract it. I voted against the Bill on Second Reading, because it seemed to me that its objective —perhaps I was wrong; I was not a member of the Committee —was to undermine much of the good work done by the industrial training boards.
The purpose of the two new clauses is to set the record right. Of course, they have been criticised. Some hon. Members who support the new clause accept the principle of voluntarism. Others, like myself and Conservative Members, believe that it was right to have a statutory requirement in 1964, which has remained ever since.
It is important to lay down criteria concerning the nature of the co-operation, professionalism and structure of training boards at a time when we are faced with the highest unemployment rate that we have ever known. We should look forward to a time when the economy picks up —none of us knows when that will be or how quickly it will come —and new skills and industrial techniques will have to be developed so that our country can recover quickly from today's grim situation.
7.15 pm
It is strange that the responsibilities of ITBs are not set out in the Bill. Those who drafted the new clauses were determined that clear criteria should be established to guide the Secretary of State. That is what we sought to do. I do not mind if the Secretary of State says that the wording is not quite right. I want him to accept the principle of the new clauses and the arguments that have been presented by members of all parties in the House. If he will apply his mind to it and say that in another place there will be an opportunity to bring forward new wording that will satisfy both himself and us, I think that he will receive a warm response from the House, industry, employers and trade unions, and certainly from the unemployed people who hope that they will at some time have the opportunity of training for and participating in industry.
I make that personal plea to the Secretary of State. I hope that he will accept the principle of what has been argued, even if he does not accept the letter of the new clause.

Mr. Needham: I shall range somewhat widely over the new clause, because I think that the House is having some difficulty in understanding the Government's strategy on training, as the Bill deals with only one part of it.
I was honoured when the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), in his usual gracious way, referred to the clause that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) tabled in Committee, which is similar to new clauses 3 and 4, but which, unfortunately, there was not time to discuss on that occasion.
If I may say so to my right hon. Friend, we are in danger of being in a bit of a "Prior pea-souper" with the present strategy for training. The Government appear to have two


positions. One is to develop the youth opportunities programme into a traineeship for a year, with a unified vocational preparation element in it, and perhaps to extend that to a two-year course through the MSC. That will probably work most effectively at area, regional and at cross-sector levels. But, secondly, we need industrial training, which since 1964 has been in the hands of the industrial training boards.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), who says that voluntarism does not work, or does not work well. It does work, and it can work well. I agree that before 1964 the level of training was not what it ought to have been. I believe, too, that the post-1981 level of training is not what it ought to be. We must all accept that in some instances—perhaps I could go so far as to say in many instances—industrial training boards have been a disappointment, when we consider the number and standards of apprentices.
There has been a lot of talk about setting standards. The industrial training boards have not altered apprenticeship standards significantly, nor have they altered their numbers significantly. They have been unable to change the old concept of time serving, instead of module training and standards. Thus, the record of the industrial training boards is not an altogether happy one.
In those circumstances, perhaps it is not a bad idea to review what industrial traininig boards are doing and find other methods, where applicable, of reforming the training structure. That is of great importance to the Government. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is determined to improve the standard of training.
In Committee I tabled a new clause because I felt that it was important for the Government, with the MSC, to spell out the criteria that they would use when the new system came into operation. In a letter to the chairman of the MSC on 26 November 1980 my right hon. Friend said:
The criteria from which, as I see it, my final decision will need to be based would include the likelihood of shortages of trained manpower in the economic upturn, the emerging demand for trained manpower in new technologies and the need for adequate quality of training (including agreed standards) for opportunities for vocational preparation of young people at all levels, and for wide opportunities for craft apprentices and for adult training.
That goes a considerable way towards setting out the criteria in the new clause, but it does not go as far as I should like. For example, it will be difficult to look into the future and determine where shortages might develop. It might not be wise to rely completely on voluntary systems, when unforseen shortages might occur.
Furthermore, the criteria for funding need to be more clearly spelt out by my right hon. Friend. Without proper criteria for funding there will be no guarantee of continuity. It is unlikely that there will be adequate staffing arrangements. The criteria that my right hon. Friend mentioned did not include the collation of information, for examaple, although that is of enormous importance. I hope that the Minister will expand on the criteria. Many of us, understandably, are worried that the Government have not been sufficiently specific.
I shall not be able to support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). For example, I cannot agree that the ITBs should define

training standards for all occupations in the sector. It is not right for ITBs to decide the level of training in accountancy, management, marketing or selling. They have broader implications and have never been regarded as coming under the ITBs.
I cannot support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Healey. It differs from mine in one crucial respect. It omits the word "voluntary". It is not wise to exclude the use of voluntary training.
Unless the Government are careful, they are likely to fall into a credibility gap. They must make it clear beyond peradventure that their commitment to adult and youth training via industry and the MSC in the localties and regions is total. If they do that they will have the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Dan Jones: For reasons that are different from those of my hon. Friend from Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) I support the theories that he has advanced. Imperfect creature that I am, I believe that I am in a position to do that with practical knowledge. I worked in a toolroom for some years. Consequently, I believe that I know what I am talking about from a practical point of view.
I am delighted that the Secretary of State is in the Chamber. He will remember when a deputation of hon. Members went to see him at Tothill Street. He will also remember that I asked him what he would do about skilled labour if there were a resurgence in the economy. He said that he did not know. Possibly that was because he was in the midst of deliberations.
I say sincerely to the Minister that if I were a member of the CBI today I should be afraid to invest a pound note. Let it be understood that unless we have skilled labour in abundance our competitive edge will disappear. Some hon. Members express concern about Japan. I am more anxious about Europe, because that is only across the water.
Caroline St. John-Brooks has written an article, which the Minister might have read. I shall read brief excerpts from it. She says:
In West Germany 93 per cent. of young people stay in education or take up apprenticeships. In France 81 per cent. do. In Britain … 44 per cent.
We are not in the running. These are facts.
She continues:
There is a lot of catching up to be done, not least in persuading industry that it must take more responsibility for training the workforce of the future—a responsibility it has shirked so far.
I am not sure that the dear girl is correct in saying that industry has shirked responsibility. However, I shall explain why it has not extended itself as well as it might.
Miss St. John-Brooks writes:
Industrial training is declining. In 1979, 80,000 young people were on recognised apprenticeship schemes. Last year there were 60,000, and the MSC is worried that 1981–82 could see a further fall to about 53,000 if there is not a further injection of government cash. At the moment, about 22,000 apprenticeships get central government funding.
That is hopelessly insufficient. The Minister realises that, because he is a highly intelligent man who is not without a good deal of moral courage. I pay that tribute sincerely. However, he must realise that unless money is spent to train people our difficulties will be compounded.
The Minister should have personal consultations with his staff. When I was in industry we found and trained staff to become thoroughly expert. They were pinched from us


by neighbouring companies which did not have apprenticeship schemes. They were pinched from us because some companies offered inflated wages. Does the Minister want that? Does he really want vicious competition in industry? Does he not think that employers are entitled to stability? I believe that they are.
Some of my hon. Friends might chastise me for putting the employers' case. My hon. Friends can do what they like. When I am in the House I try to speak the truth. I do not want to be engaged in too many doctrinaire tactics. The situation is too dangerous for that.
Without reliability and stability in industry it is doubtful whether we shall have the skilled lablour to compete with others. We are hopelessly understaffed in terms of skilled labour.
7.30 pm
I am genuinely concerned about the number of youngsters who are conducting vandalism on a scale which, to anyone with even elementary compassion, is frightening. I am primarily concerned with my constituency, because that is my responsibility. Let us apply ordinary psychology. What are the youngsters to do when they sit on their backsides day after day with no hope for the future? They are, to use the vernacular, broke. I have extraordinary compassion for those youngsters. I know what a temptation it is.
That situation has arisen needlessly in our lives, and it is connected with industrial development. The youngsters should be working for their living, not being paid by the Government to sit on their backsides waiting for the passing old dear who, traditionally, has a bag on her arm. She is maltreated in the process of getting the bag off her arm so that the offender can obtain the proceeds of that bag. My widowed mother was similarly placed when she died in my arms.
Such a position must be the responsibility of the Government. I do not say that with glee. Indeed, I am deeply sorry to say it. But the problem is connected with our economy. Those who should be at work need to be taught the skills so that they can make a contribution to our society. I say with deep regret that those youngsters are being tutored to scrounge for everything and to commit themselves to callous acts of almost studied indifference. The issues are linked.
I make a sincere appeal to the Secretary of State to take the CBI into his confidence and ask it what it wants. Its members eventually will have to invest in industry. It is only fair that they should know precisely what they are investing in.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) on his speech. It was delivered with the honesty, flair and drama which only those from Wales can achieve. My contribution to the debate will be brief.
I have a certain sympathy with the new clause. I understand what the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) is trying to achieve. I appreciate that other hon. Members have tabled a further new clause that has similar objectives. These new clauses relate to alternative organisations for those sectors in which industrial training boards are to be abolished. I see a worried look on the face of the Government Whip. I assure him that I do not agree with the details of the new clauses. I shall not vote for them if the House divides. Nevertheless, will my right hon.

Friend the Secretary of State look again at the training information gap before the Bill reaches another place, and possibly bring forward a Government new clause?
The new clause assumes that the buck for our national training effort, if it is being passed, finally stops with the Government. When everything in the garden is rosy, and when training needs are being identified and properly met, there is no need for Government involvement. But even the most reactionary, free-enterprise fanatic cannot escape the fact that when things go wrong, when training needs are not properly identified, when gaps appear in our training provisions and the Government are not able to step in with the carrot or the stick, or both—as they are able to do now under the ITB levy grant system—Parliament should have the opportunity to say whether it agrees with the alternative arrangements for achieving our training objectives. At regular intervals it should decide whether the system, be it voluntary or otherwise, is working satisfactorily.
I do not understand why it is thought that when an ITB has been wound up it is either necessary or right to put a special new organisation in its place. We want to break out of the rigid sectoral structure. Often an existing organisation could replace an ITB. Sometimes a loose framework would be required. It all depends on the industry concerned.
If the Government stand by their objectives for training, as outlined in the Secretary of State's speech on 26 November, which include, first, a more systematic provision for vocational preparation for youngsters, secondly, a modernised and more flexible apprenticeship system and, thirdly, wider opportunities for adult training and retraining, then before any voluntary arrangements are accepted by the Government they must be shown to be capable of meeting those objectives. That is why the information referred to in the new clause and the points about training criteria raised by hon. Members are important.
Information is vital—both its dissemination and its collection. Those who take overall responsibility for our vocational training must have information related to what is needed, to what resources are available to meet the needs, and to how the resources can be utilised. It is important to provide information to employers and trainees. It is the lack of up-to-date information that helps to deprive our present training system of the flexibility required to cope with today's rapidly changing employment requirements.
The debate has given me the opportunity to highlight the importance of filling what I have called the information gap—a gap that could widen when some ITBs are abolished. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take careful note of the comments made in support of the new clauses and possibly consider bringing forward an appropriate Government new clause before the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Foster: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) is unable to join us in the Lobby this evening. He has some worries about the legislation as presently framed, as he freely admitted. New clauses 3 and 4 go to the nub of the present business. I warn Conservative Members who are tempted to vote for them—I hope that they will do so—that they will be voting for a different Employment and Training Bill than that currently before the House.
From time to time, in my weaker moments, I have some sympathy with the Secretary of State. He has had to stand at the Dispatch Box month after month defending the indefensible—the rising unemployment figures. He is beleaguered by Conservative Members because of his softness on employment legislation. If reports are true, he is beleaguered by his Prime Minister because he will not stand up to the trade unions as an honest, strong, virile Conservative should.
The right hon. Gentleman is desperate for a success. In his desperate search he has come forward with the new training initiative. It is an initiative that I greatly support. However, in his euphoria at having found a desperately sought success he allows himself to be conned by his Right wing into introducing legislation that will make it impossible for him to implement the new training initiative.
Some of the more perceptive of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have recognised that and are prepared to put their names to new clause 3 in an attempt to rescue the right hon. Gentleman from himself. They recognise that if the Bill is enacted and if the right hon. Gentleman adheres to his intention to rely upon the principle of voluntarism, except in a few key sectors where wider training objectives may be necessary, he will have nothing left with which to achieve the success that he so desperately needs.
During our discussions on the Bill we felt that we were beginning to get through to the Under-Secretary of State. We treated him to a barrage of arguments. We asked him to persuade his right hon. Friend that he desperately needed to be able to implement the new training initiative. We asked him to persuade the Secretary of State to accept that he would need the boards and that if he abolished them he would need some industrial training organisations to perform the same functions as effectively. We were glad that it was reported in The Times Educational Supplement on 27 April that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), seemed to be coming in our direction. It seemed that we had made some impression upon him. It is reported in the TES that the hon. Gentleman had said at Plymouth
that the boards would only be kept 'where there is no adequate alternatives'.
The article continued:
Until now Ministers have been saying that the boards would only be retained in a few key sectors where they could be shown to be essential.
However, the hon. Gentleman was quoted as saying:
We are not going to let companies off the hook of statutory boards to slip back into inefficient training, skill shortages and poaching.
I seem to recognise those expressions from the Committee. Indeed, some of those expressions have been used by my right hon. and hon. Friends this evening.
The words that the Minister used could have been drawn from our proceedings in Committee. I remember distinctly some of my hon. Friends advancing exactly those arguments. According to the TES, the hon. Gentleman said:
We are not going to let companies off the hook".
He continued:
Any voluntary arrangements would have to meet essential needs which would include: monitoring skill shortages and other

training needs and arranging to deal with them, publicising up-to-date training standards, working with trade unions and education.
It seems that the Government Front Bench are moving in the direction of new clause 3. They are not going far enough, but they seem to be moving in that direction, especially judging by what the right hon. Gentleman said on 27 April. It is no wonder that the writer of the article to which I have referred headed it:
Government ready to renege over axing of the training boards.
I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary will have some suitable reply to the challenges to which he laid himself open. On the other hand, he may be reneging once again on his statements of 27 April.
If the Government are to get rid of the industrial training boards, they will need to put something in their place. If we are to have the substantial increase in the quantity and quality of training that I know the Secretary of State dearly wants to achieve, the replacement organisations will have to be effective. I do not understand how they can be effective organisations unless they perform functions similar to those undertaken by the existing boards. I have not heard one convincing argument that a voluntary set of arrangements and a voluntary board could fulfil similar functions more effectively. No doubt the Minister will be able to advance some plausible reasons for thinking that that can be done.
7.45 pm
The hon. Gentleman thinks that voluntary arrangements are prima facie more effective than statutory arrangements. We believe that the opposite applies. I do not want to go through all the subsections and paragraphs of new clauses 3 and 4, but the first line of subsection (2)(d) of new clause 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Healey (Mr. Hooley), states:
The organisations referred to in subsection (1) above must be capable of"—
and paragraph (d) provides:
carrying out the industry's training strategy linked to overall Government objectives, such as unified vocational preparation.
That is one of the laudable wider objectives set out by the Secretary of State and he needs the boards to enable him to achieve it.
As I said in Committee, we have a great opportunity. We all deplore the horrific proportions of youth unemployment. However, we have the opportunity of marrying the youth opportunities programme with the unified vocational preparation programme, which at present is small. I know that the Government would like to increase it so that it embraces about 20,000 young people. Even if they achieve 20,000, that will be less than one-tenth of the 300,000 young people who enter industries in which there is no training.
In my experience the industrial training boards have played a major part in devising the training schemes under UVP. How will the right hon. Gentleman be able to assure himself, the House and the training generally that he will be able to provide vocational training for all 16 to 17-yearolds who do not go into work or further education?
If the right hon. Gentleman is to do it by the marriage of YOP and UVP, how will he ensure that the vocational training programmes that are embodied in the new initiative will be directly relevant to industry? He must ensure that the young people who are now engaged in the work experience scheme have their training and work experience fully integrated with company training


programmes. He must ensure that the young people who go on to UVP have their training programmes similarly fully integrated into the company's training policy.
The right hon. Gentleman has a great problem. First, he has to determine how to deliver the goods. His second problem is to get the necessary quality of training programme written into the vocational preparation programme for 16 to 17-year-olds.
The present youth opportunites programme is inadequate and the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that now. It has great potential, but unless he devotes a great deal of his time to ensuring quality of education and training in the programme, young people in large numbers will vote with their feet and the programme will lose all credibility.
How will the Secretary of State ensure the marriage of the youth opportunities programme and UVP and the quality of education and training in both those programmes without industrial training boards? If he feels that the onus of proof lies on the Opposition to prove that the ITBs are more efficient than voluntary arrangements, I shall throw that back in his face and say that the onus is entirely on his shoulders to show us how to achieve the education and training quality that we all expect in YOP and UBP without the industrial training boards.

Mr. Robert Taylor: In the eager anticipation that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will advise the House to reject decisively the two new clauses, I rise to give him wholehearted support.
A common theme that runs through both new clauses is that it is possible to set up various bodies that can oversee every company and industry in the United Kingdom and tell the managers in those companies how they should train their staff. Clause 3 refers to assessing company training achievements. New clause 4 refers to certifying existing standards.
Who are those supernumeraries who will be able to advise the managers of industries in the United Kingdom on how they should go about training all the personnel whom they employ? I can speak from experience, because my company—I declared my interest on Second Reading—contributes to the distributive industry training board, which is one of the largest industrial training boards.
By coincidence, last Thursday, an officer from the distributive industry training board called at my company to talk to the training officer. I joined in the discussions, because I was anxious to find out how it was possible for my company to claim back some of the levy that it pays. That young man was a good employee of the board. Nothing that I say should adversely reflect on him. He was an able representative of the board. He told me that it was his job to advise companies on how to get back by way of grant much of the levy that they paid. He gave me a copy of a publication of the distributive industry training board called
Levy Exemption Remission and Grants, No. 4".
It is current, because it is operative from 1 April 1981 to 31 March 1982.
Under levy exemption criteria, heading No. 1 is "Policy" and paragraph a reads:
newcomers to the firm will receive 'off-the-job' induction training supervised by a qualified instructor.
I do not know what my right hon. Friend or other hon. Members understand by the expression "off the job". I have always believed it to mean going away on a course,

on a seminar or having some training away from the place of employment. However, I was surprised, because the young man told me that that was not correct. If someone on the trade counter had a discussion in the manager's office, he would be receiving training off the job. Someone who works in the warehouse and who has discussions with a director is being trained off the job. Therefore, probably all companies could meet that criteria.

Mr. Dan Jones: I should like to know what possible training one should want in a warehouse.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member makes a splendid point. Much training is undertaken in every warehouse. The training is carried out by those who are experienced in working with those who join the firm. A great deal of training is carried out in the warehouse so that one may learn how the products are properly warehoused, packaged and despatched. However, it is difficult to quantify that training and to claim back the levy that is being paid for the employees in the warehouse.
I asked the representative from the distributive industry training board what was meant by the words "induction training", because I thought that that was important. He gave me another piece of paper, which is the suggested induction programme. Item No. 1 is: "Welcome to the firm". We welcome new employees. I believe that most companies do that. However, we do not note down that we welcomed the new man. We welcome him automatically.
Item No. 2 is:
Show the cloakroom and personal locker".
I believe that most new employees would be able to find the cloakroom quite quickly or they would ask one of their colleagues where it was.
Item No. 3 is:
Introduce to other staff and also to 'Sponsor' who will take new employee to breaks.".
Item No. 4 is:
Explanation of meal breaks, times, facilities and geography of the building.
That training board has been in existence for 16 years. It is assessing—as do the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) and others of my hon. Friends—whether a firm is training properly. There is no other way in which to assess training in the distributive industry. The firms that make up that industry have different approaches. There are diverse parts of the industry. No training criteria can suit all the firms. However, those in the House who have had no experience of the industry say that one cannot do away with the distributive industry training board and that it must be kept in existence. They ask what will take its place. One does not need anything to take its place, because British management is capable of training its employees. If it does not, its companies will not be profitable and will sink. The climate in the United Kingdom today is such that training is essential. No good management will not train properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) referred to the new clauses as being a corporate nanny. That is exactly what they are. Industry does not want such nonsense to be imposed on it.

Mr. Penhaligon: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has introduced computerised stock control in his company, but if he has he will know that the training for it is more substantial than simply covering where the


tea room is and so on. If he put a number of employees through a complicated course of computerised stock control, which will come, whether or not it is in his company, how would he feel if the company down the road with which he competes saw that those men were excellent and well-trained, offered them an extra couple of hundred pounds a year and down the road they went?

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Only the efficient company can afford the investment of putting in computers. My company is putting one in now. Companies which are inefficient, which do not do their own training and which poach will never be able to afford to install a computer.
I am happy to face the fact that after we have trained our employees to use the computer some poaching may occur. However, if a firm has a happy relationship with all its employees, if they are paid well and are well looked after, they will not allow themselves to be poached. It is a question not just of training but of offering a better environment in industry and of inducing employees away not because they are trained, but because one can offer them greater reward or better facilities. That is fair and proper in a capitalist society. I do not mind competition on that score any day of the week.
As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington called the two clauses a corporate nanny, which is what they are. They are not required by industry. I hope that the House will decisively reject what I regard as pusillanimous piffle.

8 pm

Mr. John Golding: I am under pressure from the conspiracy of Whips to speak briefly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) wants me to keep my remarks to a minimum.
I cannot let pass the remarks of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West, (Mr. Taylor). Any hon. Member who has entered Parliament through a by-election will know something about ineffective working through lack of training. No hon. Member should pour scorn on an employer who shows an employee the geography of the place. He should admit that his early months were not too effective because he was not shown the geography of this place. The effectiveness of hon. Members is less in their early years than it is later, because we have to learn as we go along. There is no effective training for the practicalities of the job. I am astonished to meet hon. Members who, even late in their careers, do not know the rules of procedure and are not precisely aware of how to achieve their objectives. The occupation of being a Member of Parliament illustrates better than any other the need for training and experience to make one effective.

Mr. Robert Taylor: The point is not so much whether management shows the geography. It is that one has to catalogue that one is doing so. One pays a levy and claims it back again, which is nonsense.

Mr. Golding: It is far from being nonsense. Many employers do not do so. It is a valuable service to an employee. It makes people feel at ease, at home and welcome to the firm, although it does not always happen.
My quarrel with the Government is that it is not clear why we are training. What is essential? One criterion is

that training is essential if without it there would be no skilled workers to meet the market. I am at one with the Government on that. However, other training is highly desirable.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West. Profitability does not automatically depend upon training. Each shop or restaurant in a high street can be equally inefficient. I could go into detail about the need to train not only technicians and craftsmen, but semiskilled workers in shops, offices and cafes. One reason why Britain is in an industrial decline is the lowering of work standards, due partly to failure of training. Employers have not felt bound to train people to work effectively at all levels. It is possible for a person to find a job or for a firm to make a profit without effective training. We have all had bad service in shops and cafes and difficulties in dealing with office clerks, not because they are unintelligent or do not want to provide the service, but because they do not know how.

Mr. Dan Jones: We cannot compare training in science and engineering with alleged training in cafes.

Mr. Golding: My hon. Friend may have been a craftsman. My dad was a cook. It is as important to be trained in the art of cooking and serving as it is in the art of turning and milling. I acknowledge to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) that it is as important to be trained to grow carrots as it is to repair machinery.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman does the House a great service. We regard the catering trade and service industries too lightly. Anything that we can do to improve their status is welcome.

Mr. Golding: Training is not only a question of meeting industry's needs. It also serves the personal needs of individuals. We have not fully developed individual potential. We tend to concentrate on educating and training a small number of people at a relatively young age. We have not done as much as other countries to develop the full potential of individuals throughout their lives. We need a training system to enable people to work to their full potential.
Training is important for status, personal satisfaction and economic efficiency. The Government have isolated a small area of training as important and are in danger of not facilitating other training.

Mr. John Townend: I share the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North-West (Mr. Taylor). He has put his finger on the point. Businesses cannot be successful without adequately trained workers.
I declare an interest. I have experience of training boards through my companies. I know three of the quangos—those involved in hotels and catering and food, drink and tobacco and the distributive training board.
We are all in favour of training, but what is the most cost-effective method? I oppose the new clause because it applies indiscriminately to all training boards. In practice it would make it very difficult for the Secretary of State to exercise his powers and wind up any of the industrial training boards.
That might be right and proper in a high technology industry such as the engineering industry, where it could be argued that an industry organisation was necessary not only for the industry but in the national interest. We cannot generalise, however. We have to deal with the industries


individually. What about those industries in which there are good arguments for abolishing the training boards and leaving training not to some new voluntary body but to individual firms?
My experience is that the three training boards that I have mentioned could well be axed. The distributive board deals with the retail trade. The British retail trade is one of our most successful industries and compares with the best in the world. Marks and Spencer, having conquered the retail sector in this country, is now making great strides in France and moving into the new world. Sainsbury's is one of our leading companies, as are Harrods and Asda, to name but a few. Those firms will train within their own organisations If there is any decline in training, I believe that it will be only in those firms that will not succeed and will go out of business or among smaller firms.
I cannot understand the Opposition's attitude to what they describe as "poaching". I should have thought that they would welcome skilled salaried and manual workers being given the opportunity to improve their standard of life by accepting jobs at higher rates of pay. I see no problem at all in that.
If any businesses suffer, it will be the larger firms. If any benefit, it will be the smaller firms. But that is surely more than counterbalanced by the massive discounts that the large companies obtain through bulk buying as compared with the small firms. If there is one area in which the small firm has some small advantage, so be it.

Mr. Penhaligon: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point about poaching. It is not so much that we begrudge a person the right to use his skills and to sell them where best he can. We are worried that if poaching becomes prevalent the number of companies choosing to undertake no training at all will greatly increase.
To cite an example, in my beloved county of Cornwall there is no need to train anybody to do anything throughout the entire county. One has only to put an advertisement in the newspaper and hordes of people try to get down to Cornwall to carry out the job and sell the skills that they have accumulated elsewhere. That is pretty bad news for all the youngsters in Cornwall who cannot look forward to any training.

Mr. Townend: I cannot believe that, for example, all the catering establishments in Cornwall have top class chefs and top class food.
It is argued that training must be done on an industry basis. I cite the examples of two industries in which we dominate world competition—banking and insurance. Although professional bodies exist, training of computer and other staff is carried out by the individual banks and insurance companies.
The hotel industry is a classic case in which training is essential. But what kind of training do we need? In my own medium-sized hotel we pay a fairly substantial amount to the training board every year, which helps to subsidise the larger companies. We do very badly out of it, although we train. The managing director, who is a practical cook himself, undertakes training in the kitchen but cannot be bothered to keep records.
The same applies in my wine business. When the training started and the inspector came round, he asked what training we did. We explained that every month we

had our managers in, gave them a tasting and explained about the various wines. He said that that was marvellous and asked to see the individual records of the managers. When I asked what he meant, he explained that after a tasting a card must be made out for each manager, recording the date, the time, the fact that the wine had been tasted and the cost. I replied that if I costed it I should probably never do it again.
One therefore cannot generalise about training. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding)—in his, as always, poignant remarks—said that the quality of our work force had been declining over the 15 years during which industrial training boards had existed. I should have thought that that was a good argument against their continuation.
The great failure of the training boards is surely in the apprenticeship system, in which there has been no reform. The real problem is not that we do not have training boards or that we are not spending enough money. We have simply got the wage rate for apprentices wrong, so that they have priced themselves out of the market.
I know that time is short. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend not to listen either to the apparently persuasive arguments from some of his hon. Friends or to the blandishments of the Opposition. I urge the Government to throw out the new clause.

Mr. Harold Walker: We have had a useful debate on an important proposal which I believe goes to the heart of some of the differences between the two sides of the House. We have now been debating it for nearly two hours and, unhappily, the hopes of many of us of finishing our business at a reasonable hour are fast receding.
I wish to state briefly the position of the Opposition Front Bench in this matter. In Committee we were pressed hard to table a clause similar to this, but declined to do so. When the clause was put on the Amendment Paper we were pressed to attach the names of Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, but again we declined. We did so because we felt that this matter should come before the House on Report to be debated by the whole House and that we might not have had that opportunity had we dealt with the matter in Committee.
Secondly, and much more importantly, we have no intention of retreating from the firm commitment that we have given to and our strong support for the existing statutory system as the basis for our training arrangements. We have made it clear that we share and support the view expressed in "Outlook on Training", the review of the Employment and Training Act, particularly in chapter 8, paragraph 7, which states:
Radical changes in the existing structure would involve massive disruption. Any new bodies would take time to win credibility and influence. There would inevitably be teething problems and mistakes due to inexperience. Alternative structures would have to have clear advantages indeed to justify risking a major hiatus in training effort in a decade in which training will be of great importance. We have not been convinced of the reality of those advantages: nor, it is clear, have the great majority of those who submitted evidence to us. We accept—indeed we emphasise—that a better approach to local and cross-sector needs can and must be devised. But we consider that the existing statutory framework, within which the MSC can work in collaboration with industry training bodies, can be developed and adapted to meet these needs".
The review concludes:
We therefore favour building on existing foundations.
That has been our position and we do not resile from it. New clauses 3 and 4 do not do that either. They seem, in


fact, to provide a blocking mechanism to prevent boards that are abolished from providing the opportunity for a lapse into voluntarism.
In view of what I have said about the time, I wish at this hour to avoid becoming over-involved yet again in a philosophical discussion about voluntarism and the statutory system. Nevertheless, I cannot resist drawing the attention of the House to a page in the May issue of the journal of the British Association for Commercial and Industrial Education, which provides chapter and verse, and quotations, for the horrors, weaknesses and failings of the voluntary system over many years right up to the 1964 Act. They are all set out there, so I shall not take up the time of the House in citing examples, except just to give the flavour.
It starts with a preamble referring to arguments which have been and are continuing to be advanced by the protagonists in what it calls
the present ten-yearly ritual of pulling up the plant to see why it is not conforming to the description in the seed catalogue".
It goes on to say that that shows a distressing lack of originality. It lists many of the statements made by Ministers, mainly Conservative Ministers, and by other people who have been professionally involved in one way or the other with industrial training over many years. It illustrates the pitfalls of the system that we hoped the 1964 Act had put behind us.
Since our early debates on the question our view has received further reinforcement from the Manpower Services Commission. We all know the composition of the commission and the tremendous amount of professional and disinterested expertise on which it can draw. It has published a further consultation document entitled "A New Training Initiative", which says in paragraph 36 on page 6:
There are three major questions to be resolved: who should bear the costs, what organisation is required; and by what means should we seek to make progress? There are no simple and obvious answers to any of these questions but three things are clear. First, there will have to be a significant increase in the resources devoted—whether by Government, industry or both—to training … Secondly, we must look to develop or reinforce institutional arrangements which are robust and effective, and in which all partners in industry can have confidence. We need machinery, for example, to set and monitor appropriate standards of skill achievement; to promote training practices which will ensure that high standards of skill are achieved; and to help the work force to adapt to changing demand".
I very much doubt whether the voluntary arrangements of which the Government are so enamoured will meet those targets. The document then says:
Thirdly, we must have the statutory underpinning which is essential to ensure that adequate resources and machinery are available".
Then in paragraph 44 it says:
With the Manpower Services Commission we already have a statutory framework which provides for the establishment of Industry Training Boards; and there are a number of industries where non-statutory organisations do much to stimulate training provision. What we have now to decide is how to use this framework of statutory and voluntary approaches to maximum effect".
That reinforces our view that the existing institutional arrangements and statutory framework are right. It is a view that is shared by the MSC and by the review body that produced "Outlook on Training", and we do not resile from it now.
I was delighted to see that the Secretaries of State had welcomed the consultation document entitled "A New Training Initiative", but what caused me some qualified anxiety was that the Secretaries of State, led by the Secretary of State for Employment, said that they would consider with the MSC what could be done within the available resources to advance the objectives.
I hope that the Secretary of State will tell me that I am wrong in assuming that the reference to available resources means the present resources, which he has already slashed again and again. In the MSC's corporate plan it was made quite clear that the cuts that he had imposed so far would reduce public expenditure on training by a further £77½ million by 1984. I still have not yet heard, despite the number of times on which I have put the question, whether that £77½ million includes, or is additional to, the £50 million that is being withdrawn from the boards by the Bill. Is the figure £77½ million, or £127½ million? We still do not know the answer.
It seemed all the more incredible that on the same day the Secretary of State could put out a press notice saying:
Investing in people is as important to the future of this country as investing in new plant and machinery".
I hope that we would all say "Hear, hear" to that. The Secretary of State went on to say that we do not do enough of either. We do not get enough investment in people or in new plant and machinery. But he is the one who is cutting back the investment for all he is worth.

Mr. Prior: That does not mean to say that it all has to be Government investment. We also go on to say that industry has a part to play.

Mr. Walker: The Secretary of State is ruining the very instrument by means of which he can ensure that industry is able to play its part. He is not only withdrawing the money, he is withdrawing the instrument. What have we been debating for the last two hours? The right hon. Gentleman should have taken out his earplugs. This is what the debate has been about.
The Secretary of State, in the same notice, went on to say:
Training is simply not given sufficient priority in Britain".
but he is the one who is ensuring that its priority is being diminished. The press notice continued:
Like other investment, it requires sacrifice now in return for future gains".
That is marvellous stuff. That is the sort of thing that I could say with real pleasure, but it is the Secretary of State who is cutting back on public expenditure, cutting back on training, and removing all the disciplines, sanctions and coercions on industry to do precisely what he says needs to be done. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that
the pay-off is rarely immediate, and individuals' and companies' perspectives tend to be short".
That is what we have been saying. Of course industry will stick to the short-term advantage in the present circumstances. Who can blame industry for doing that when it is reeling from the impact of Government policy after Government policy, and when it has its back to the wall? Of course it will cut back on research, investment and training. Of course it will regard those things as overheads, and chop and prune in the hope that sooner or later times will change. But the damage will have been done by then, and the damage will be irreparable. This is the very time when the Secretary of State needs the power to make industry fulfil the long-term objectives to which he looks forward.
I found it even more incredible that the Under-Secretary of State, who added so much to our debates in Standing Committee, should have said, only on 3 June, during a visit to the construction industry centre at Bircham Newton, that there was no doubt that over the years many industry training boards had made a major contribution. Is this double-talk, double-cross or just muddle? Perhaps it is a combination of all those things. Ministers are saying one thing in the House of Commons and saying entirely contradictory things up and down the country. I do not know whether they are trying to con people, but they are putting themselves into an absurd position, and it is an absurdity that they are seeking to inflict on the House.
If there was one statement in the course of the last week from professionals in the training industry that riveted me it was the statement from the chairman of the Engineering Industry Training Board. He is not a person with a vested interest, and he is not lacking in knowledge of the engineering industry. He said that apparently this year's intake of engineering apprentices would be down to 12,000. We all know that the usual annual intake can be measured in the twenties of thousands. This year it is estimated that we need 20,000 apprentices, but we shall have only a little over half the necessary intake.
Ministers may say that that is a condemnation of the existing arrangements. They may say that that shows the weakness of the existing arrangement and the need for an entirely different approach. Given the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument and the bleak forecast for the supply of skilled manpower in the engineering industry, the right hon. Gentleman should tell us that he will abolish the Engineering Industry Training Board. He should leave the engineering industry to satisfy its manpower needs by voluntary arrangements. That is the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's position. The right hon. Gentleman should say that the EITB has failed and that the industry should rely on voluntary arrangements for its skilled engineering needs.
8.30 pm
I lay a £5 wage with any hon. Member who is willing to take it that the right hon. Gentleman will do no such thing. He knows that if the engineering industry can reach only half of its targets with the EITB, it will meet only a fraction of its targets without it. The EITB and the other boards should be given the Government support that they need and the financial assistance that they need in present-day circumstances. We should revert to the original principles of the 1964 Act—the carrot and stick principles—and apply them with a vigour that has never been seen before. That is vital.
The right hon. Gentleman says that where training needs are not being met by statutory arrangements, voluntary arrangements might be better. If that is so, he should abolish the EITB as soon as he has the power to do so. As yet, I have had no takers for my wager. The wager will be open all evening. I wager £5 that the EITB survives. I have spoken for longer than I had intended to do. The new clause is essentially a blocking mechanism and a line of defence, which will prevent the worst when the Secretary of State has the power to implement his plans.
I hope that it will not be thought that we are resiling from our commitment to the statutory arrangements. However, having regard to the argument put forward in support of the new clause, and given that although it is a

bad second best it may still provide some form of defence, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House and to support the new clause in the Lobby.

Mr. Peter Morrison: As the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said, the two new clauses are the nub of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also holds that belief. As those who served on the Committee will know, the question is whether voluntarism can work or whether one must follow a statutory route.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) rightly pointed out, a voluntary approach works in some industries. He cited the example of banks and insurance companies. If the success of training is judged by the success of the industries concerned, it would seem that training in those industries has been successful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham), the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) and the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) understandably asked whether my right hon. Friend and I took training seriously. Of course the answer is "Yes". There can be no question about that. We would not be considering training boards, we would not have involved ourselves in such a Bill and my right hon. Friend would not have given his name to the new training initiative if we were not seriously concerned about the future of training.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster quoted back at me something that I said last week at the CITB at Bircham Newton. I paid tribute to that board. However, I pay tribute to all statutory boards and particularly to their employees. My hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) was at pains to point out the successful approach that they had—I emphasise "had"—taken in the past. I accept that that is so.
In certain sectors it has been possible to turn the industries round so that they point in the direction that will lead to better training. To suggest that if a sector takes the voluntary route it will mean a return to pre-1964 is to prejudge the review of the MSC and the points of view on voluntary arrangements that will be put forward by the industries concerned.
I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). He said that the nation dramatically lacked skills. He may not have meant that in that way, but if it is so it does not say as much for the training boards as some Opposition Members would have us believe. The hon. Gentleman and I are working on the same lines. We wish to ensure that there is as flexible an approach as possible to training. If there is a potential skill shortage, it can then be quickly plugged.
In my postbag I often get complaints to the effect that industrial training boards tend to be too bureaucratic. The hon. Gentleman made that point and said that there were too many of them. He said—I hope that I am quoting him correctly—that there was something to be said for voluntarism.
The hon. Gentleman and I would not disagree on any of those points. Where we would disagree is on his new clause and that tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), which is on similar lines. If we were to accept either new clause, when my right hon. Friend came to decide whether a statutory training board should be retained he would be bound and gagged and it would be impossible for him to make a decision about the abolition of a given board.
The hon. Member for Heeley maintained that in the review of the Employment and Training Act there was no recommendation for us to consider each training board. I refer him to recommendation 16, which says:
The Manpower Services Commission should undertake an examination of the scope of existing ITBs, and the boundary between industries in scope and those not in scope to Boards. This should be done in full consultation with both sides of industry.
That recommendation means that there should be a further review what the boards were doing, on a sector-by-sector basis.
As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) said—he was honest in his approach—if we were to accept either new clause we should be gagged and bound. That was what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) said, and it is true.
It would be wrong to attempt a single blueprint for all the industries, which the new clauses attempt to do, of which boards may be abolished or which industries may be removed from the scope of boards. Before we have the MSC sector-by-sector review it is difficult to know for certain, but it seems possible that in some sectors training arrangements could exist without a national organisation. That might be so where the bulk of training was done by a few large firms, which could be relied upon to plan and provide enough training of high quality without supervision.
That would not satisfy the criteria laid out in the new clauses. It seems likely that some industries that have been brought together under a board would want to organise themselves separately under a voluntary regime. Thus, there might be several voluntary organisations, each providing adequate training, where once there was one board. That would not satisfy the requirements of the new clauses.
To take another example, it seems possible that a voluntary organisation could make use of commercial or educational facilities to provide professional training expertise or to set and certify qualifications. That would not satisfy the criteria in the new clauses.
I could give many different examples, but the Government believe, prima facie—the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland is correct—that a voluntary organisation can be just as good as a statutory board. That is the difference between the two sides of the House. I quoted the banks and the insurance companies. We shall see what programmes the different sectors of industry produce if they wish to go voluntary.
In the light of the review my right hon. Friend will be able to judge what a voluntary organisation will be like and he can take decisions as a result. If we were to accept either new clause he could not take those decisions as freely and easily as he can now. As I said before, he would be bound and gagged. For that reason, I hope that the House will reject the new clauses.

Mr. Penhaligon: I am disappointed with that reply and I shall force the new clause to a Division. What the Minister has said is not true. The Secretary of State would not be bound and gagged if the House accepted new clause 3, and the Minister has not said that he will produce something similar in another place. We have not had one iota of progress on this subject.
We are seeking an assurance that the new set-up, whatever it is it will not be less effective in providing training than the previous system. That assurance has not been given. I am thereofore delighted that so many hon. Members will vote for the new clause, and I hope that those Conservative Members who have added their names to it will vote with us as well.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 231.

Division No. 213]
[8.40 pm


AYES


Allaun, Frank
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Anderson, Donald
Haynes, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Heffer, Eric S.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Home Robertson, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Homewood, William


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Huckfield, Les


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Janner, Hon Greville


Campbell, Ian
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cohen, Stanley
Kerr, Russell


Coleman, Donald
Kilfedder, James A.


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Lamond, James


Cook, Robin F.
Leighton, Ronald


Cowans, Harry
Lestor, Miss Joan


Craigen, J. M.
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Crowther, J. S.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cryer, Bob
Litherland, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
McCartney, Hugh


Davidson, Arthur
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McKelvey, William


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Deakins, Eric
McNally, Thomas


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McTaggart, Robert


Dempsey, James
Magee, Bryan


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Dixon, Donald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dormand, Jack
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Douglas, Dick
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Dunn, James A.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Maynard, Miss Joan


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Meacher, Michael


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


English, Michael
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Evans, John (Newton)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Ewing, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Fitch, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flannery, Martin
Morton, George


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Ford, Ben
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Forrester, John
Newens, Stanley


Foster, Derek
O'Halloran, Michael


Foulkes, George
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


George, Bruce
Palmer, Arthur


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Parry, Robert


Golding, John
Pendry, Tom


Gourlay, Harry
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Graham, Ted
Prescott, John


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Richardson, Jo


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)






Rooker, J. W.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Wainwright, E (Dearne V)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Sheerman, Barry
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Welsh, Michael


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
White, Frank R.


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Silverman, Julius
Whitlock, William


Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Stoddart, David
Winnick, David


Stott, Roger
Woodall, Alec


Strang, Gavin
Woolmer, Kenneth


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Young, David (Bolton E)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)



Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Dr R (Carmarthen)
Mr. David Penhaligon and


Tilley, John
Mr. Tom Bradley.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Tom
Elliott, Sir William


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Eyre, Reginald


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Farr, John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fell, Anthony


Best, Keith
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Biggs-Davison, John
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Blackburn, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Body, Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Boscawen, Hen Robert
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bright, Graham
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brittan, Leon
Goodhart, Philip


Brooke, Hon Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Gorst, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Greenway, Harry


Buck, Antony
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Budgen, Nick
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Bulmer, Esmond
Grist, Ian


Burden, Sir Frederick
Gummer, John Selwyn


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Henderson, Barry


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hicks, Robert


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hooson, Tom


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hordern, Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Corrie, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Costain, Sir Albert
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Cranborne, Viscount
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Critchley, Julian
Jessel, Toby


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kershaw, Anthony


Durant, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Jill





Knox, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Norman
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lang, Ian
Rifkind, Malcolm


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Latham, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Hugh


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rost, Peter


Le Merchant, Spencer
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shelton, William (Strtmtham)


MacGregor, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shepherd, Richard


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Silvester, Fred


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Sims, Roger


McQuarrie, Albert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Major, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Marland, Paul
Sproat, Iain


Marlow, Tony
Squire, Robin


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mather, Carol
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stevens, Martin


Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stokes, John


Mayhew, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mellor, David
Tapsell, Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Monro, Hector
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Moore, John
Thompson, Donald


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thornton, Malcolm


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mudd, David
Trippier, David


Murphy, Christopher
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Myles, David
Viggers, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Waddington, David


Nelson, Anthony
Wakeham, John


Neubert, Michael
Walker, B. (Perth)


Newton, Tony
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Normanton, Tom
Wall, Patrick


Onslow, Cranley
Waller, Gary


Osborn, John
Ward, John


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Warren, Kenneth


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Wells, Bowen


Parkinson, Cecil
Whitney, Raymond


Parris, Matthew
Wickenden, Keith


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wilkinson, John


Pink, R. Bonner
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Pollock, Alexander
Wolfson, Mark


Porter, Barry
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Younger, Rt Hon George


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)



Prior, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Noes:


Proctor, K. Harvey
Mr. John Cope and


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Renton, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING ORDERS

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 38, at end insert—
'(4) If an order made under subsection (2) of this section has the effect of winding up an industrial training board the Minister shall, not more than twelve months after the order takes effect, and at annual intervals thereafter, publish and lay before Parliament a report of the training arrangements in the industry and the report shall contain information in particular about



(a) the arrangements for monitoring skill shortages and other training needs, and the action being taken to alleviate them,
(b) the devising, and keeping up-to-date, and the publicising of training standards appropriate to the industry,
(c) the extent to which trade unions and educational institutions are involved in the industry's training arrangements.'.

I am sure that, when he saw the amendment, the Under-Secretary of State instantly recognised the words. They are culled from the press notice giving details of what the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), said on 13 April when he spoke in Plymouth:
we are not going to let companies off the hook of statutory boards to slip back into inefficient training, skill shortages and poaching. We want to capitalise on the successes of the statutory boards—not waste them. Any voluntary arrangements would have to be adequate to meet essential training needs".I hope that hon. Members are looking at paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the amendment, because the Under-Secretary of State went on to say:
These would include: monitoring skill shortages and other training needs, and arranging voluntary action to alleviate them; devising, and keeping up to date and publicising training standards appropriate to the industry; working as appropriate with trade unions and educational institutions.
All that we are asking the Under-Secretary of State to do today is put his words on the statute book.
It is eminently sensible that Parliament should continue to have an oversight of the effect of winding up an industrial training board, with particular regard to those factors properly identified by the Under-Secretary of State. If boards are to be abolished, because the Government are convinced that the alternative voluntary arrangements will meet the manpower needs of the industries concerned, unless there are monitoring arrangements and reports to provide essential information we shall be unable to judge whether the Government have been wise or unwise in abolishing those boards, and whether it is necessary to take urgent statutory action to re-establish them.
What the Under-Secretary of State said at Plymouth was sensible and he should underpin it by statutory action. I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): I hate to disappoint anyone. Although no speech of mine gave birth to this amendment, I heartily applaud the choice of language of the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Memberfor City of Chester (Mr. Morrison). Certainly the amendment covers some of the most important objectives of voluntary training arrangements and goes on to require that an annual report about them shall be published.
I readily accept that it is right that the Government should take a close interest, initially at least, in the voluntary arrangements that may replace statutory training boards. At the same time, it is inappropriate, on several grounds, to impose a statutory obligation on my Department to publish a report about them each year. Initially we would expect the MSC' s annual report, which my right hon. Friend has a statutory duty to lay before Parliament, to contain information about the commission's relations with new voluntary training bodies which may be developed in place of industrial training boards. The

annual report has regularly given information of this kind about voluntary bodies outside the ITB field. When the new voluntary bodies settle down, one would expect the MSC not to have to take such a substantial interest in them, and I would not expect that reports about them would continue to be necessary.
I should also remind the House that it has always been envisaged that in some areas we may finish up without any collective institution. Where most of the training is done by a few big firms, arrangements could well be left in their hands, with satisfactory results. In those circumstances, the amendment would imply requiring individual companies to provide information on a regular basis; this the Government most certainly would wish to avoid.
Finally, it would be inappropriate to lay a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to make an annual report on matters that were not within his direct responsibility. That sounds slightly technical, but strictly it is correct. I invite the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Eastham: I am disappointed with the comments of the Under-Secretary of State, who will recall that in Committee I raised this matter and asked about monitoring. He replied then that there was merit in the idea of some monitoring, although nothing had been firmed up. All parties acknowledge that Governments have consistently made mistakes. That was the reason for the legislation in 1964. What we are trying to do is protect the future, not just of individual industries, but of the nation, if we are to have any industry at all.
We have all been bombarded with numerous pieces of literature from various quarters and interests. We also pick up some information from reading odd publications. Only recently I read in a building trade journal published in April a long article entitled "Training for survival". I shall not bore the House with full details of it, but one passage is worth recording:
As I am sure you appreciate, training has, like the nation, reached its crossroads and it is vital at this time of uncertainty that we take the right road.
You do not need me to remind you that industry is vast and complex; that its workload is largely unstable and cyclical and highly sensitive to changes in Government economic policies; that there is great diversity both in size and type of firms, a large number of whom do little if any training.
That all underlines the need for someone to see into the future and to help industry through the various phases of boom and recession".
This was submitted not by trade unionists, but by professionals, who, I presume, would often support the Government. We are seeing the realisation by intelligent people that proper provision has to be made. This is why we cannot now have a situation like that prior to 1964, where we will be faced with a time lag. If we start to fail now, it will not show immediately. When apprenticeships and training are involved, it takes a number of years to show up. There will be a gradual decline.
9 pm
For those reasons, we need monitoring, and a report, so that we may have advance warning. We should not leave it until the death, when we suddenly find ourselves in a terrible mess. Input is needed from industry, and also from education and the various employment agencies. Industry is an ever-changing business, and, in view of all the new developments and technologies, one has a right to ask what provision is to be made. The Under-Secretary said that there would be no interference and that the Government were not asking for reports. How will we get


the information? Who do we turn to? Who will make the provisions? How will the Government know which needs are to be provided or should be provided?
I should al so like a breakdown into groups, by age and sex. It would not be a bad idea to know about training for the disabled. Disabled people are able to carry out many intricate jobs. This is the International Year of Disabled People, yet there is no mention of using the skills of many of these people who, although physically incapacitated, can perform useful jobs. We need positive information and an opportunity to debate some of these issues on the Floor of the House.
If industry lets us down, as it has done in the past, and as I am sure it will do in the future, it will not be industry that pays, but the nation.

Mr. Waddington: I fear that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) may not have heard all that I said. I was at pains to say that, in its annual reports, the MSC regularly gives information about voluntary bodies, and there is no reason why that should not continue. So, although the hon. Member says that there is no provision for monitoring, some monitoring will no doubt continue.
I appreciate the hon. Member's interest in the matter and I apologise for having risen to my feet so quickly. Obviously, the after-effects of a late night prevented me from seeing that he wanted to intervene. I realise that he is the author of new clause 5, which has not been selected. However, had it been selected and debated, I should have had to point out that it would place an intolerable burden on firms to supply statistics which at the moment are not available to the Government. We already receive plenty of complaints in our Department about the gathering of statistics from companies, and the resultant burden on companies.
We must strike a balance. I believe that the present arrangement is proper and should continue when voluntary bodics come into existence. However, I repeat that, in the initial stages, the Government should take a close interest in the voluntary arrangements that are to replace statutory training boards.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am astonished by the Minister's reply. He began by warmly endorsing the Under-Secretary of State's speech at Plymouth but went on to say that the Government rejected any proposals to ensure that actions that the Government believe to be desirable are taken.

Mr. Craigen: Is it not significant that it was the hon. and learned Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington) rather than the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) who replied to the debate?

Mr. Walker: I thought that the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) must be feeling the pangs of hunger or the need for refreshment, but perhaps that was too simple an interpretation. Perhaps he is not here because he does not want to face the inevitable consequences of what he said. When a Minister makes a speech in public, it is regarded as a statement of Government policy.
I had hoped that the Government would say that even if they were not prepared to accept our amendment alternatives would be put to the House to implement the suggestions made at Plymouth. All we have heard is that the MSC report contains references to monitoring

arrangements in the voluntary sector. However, that does not go as far as the Under-Secretary went in his speech at Plymouth. We ask the Government to live up to their words. Ministers should not make speeches and then come to the House, turn their backs on them and assume that hon. Members will not have read them. We are entitled to know what the Government intend to do to implement their Plymouth proposals. I hope that the Minister will tell the MSC that its annual report must vindicate the words chosen by the hon. Member for City of Chester at Plymouth.
Big companies are required by law to provide certain information for shareholders. I cannot understand why they should not have a similar obligation to provide information about their training performance. That is just as important to the company, the industry of which it is a part and the nation. The arrangements for meeting manpower needs are as important as many other aspects of a company's business.
We shall return to the issue. In view of the time, I shall not divide the House. However, I hope that the Government will reflect upon our remarks and ensure that they live up to the words uttered in ministerial statements and which have appeared in departmental press notices. Alternatively, I hope that they will be more cautious about how they goad the public.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING LEVIES

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 44, at end insert—
'(1A) For subsection (2A)(d)(i) of Section 4 of the said Act of 1964 there shall be substituted:

"(i) does not exceed an amount which the Minister estimates is equal to 3 per cent. of the aggregate of the emoluments and payments intended to be disbursed as emoluments which are paid and payable, by that employer to or in respect of persons employed in the industry, in respect of the period specified in the proposals as the period which is relevant for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, or".'.

I shall try to be brief, because we are on familiar ground. Reference was made to the issue on Second Reading and in Committee. However, the amendment uses a different formula to produce a similar result.
We are acting in accordance with the MSC review "Outlook on Training". That made it clear that severing the link between the Government and the board's operating costs—which is a return to the 1954 Act provisions—should be accompanied by the removal of the statutory ceiling on levy.
If the Government want to behave consistently—at least in that one respect—with "Outlook on Training", they should withdraw the ceiling on the levy. We say that not only because the review body recommended it and we think it right—we supported the severing of the link between the Government and the funding of operating costs—but because if the 1964 Act has not fulfilled all the hopes pinned on it—and I doubt that it has, because some may have been pitched too high—it is because we did not apply the carrot and stick principle with sufficient rigour and vigour.
Perhaps the penalties for an employer who does not fulfil his training obligations should have been heavier.


That would have provided the resources for the boards to make more generous grants. That was one of the provisions of the 1964 Act. I have always said that if a firm fulfils or goes beyond its reasonable training obligations, and if the levy grant system is sufficiently generous to reward that firm, that should be done. No harm would be caused by doing so. Perhaps it is because we did not apply sufficiently heavy levies and sufficiently rewarding grants that the Act was not as successful as we had hoped it would be.
Another difficulty arises from the need of the boards to have a level of levy that is adequate to ensure not only that the necessary training arrangements are carried out and that they employ the necessary staff to do so, but that they can meet that part of their costs which during past years has been supplied by Government. I refer to the additional levy to meet operating costs.
Having regard to all that Ministers have said about the importance of training and the importance of freedom in such matters, we should return to the boards the discretion that they formerly held under the 1964 Act. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. Peter Morrison: We discussed in Committee, at great length and for good reasons, the question of operating costs. The Government made their view clear. The power of boards to raise a levy exceeding 1 per cent. of emoluments should be exercised only if there is an affirmative resolution. I shall come to the question of operating costs later.
As the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) knows, 1 per cent. is not the absolute ceiling. It is the figure at which a different level of parliamentary control comes into operation. We believe that that is right, and we are not persuaded that there is a need to raise the ceiling for example to the 3 per cent. suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is ready in principle to approve proposals above 1 per cent. and to seek appropriate resolution, provided that he is convinced that there is a good reason to do so. As the House and the right hon. Gentleman will know, only one board has operated a levy of more than 1 per cent. of payroll since the 1973 Act came into force. The majority of boards operate levies significantly below that ceiling.
That does not necessarily suggest that the 1 per cent. ceiling has been a great constraint on boards. I am aware that some boards are worried about needing a higher rate of levy to meet operating costs, but I am not convinced that that would be necessary to any significant extent.
As the House knows, we have made some provision for operating costs. Boards will be allowed to raise up to a 0·2 per cent. levy on a non-exemptible basis, without going through the consensus. That figure was set with operating costs in mind. Many boards have sufficient leeway in their present levy rates to make whatever adjustments are needed without going above 1 per cent. To change to the 3 per cent. suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would not be right. I advise the House to resist the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided, Ayes 170, Noes 232.

Division No. 214]
[9.14 pm


AYES


Allaun, Frank
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Anderson, Donald
Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)





Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Kerr, Russell


Bradley, Tom
Kilfedder, James A.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lamond, James


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Buchan, Norman
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Campbell, Ian
Litherland, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Carmichael, Neil
McCartney, Hugh


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McKelvey, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cohen, Stanley
Maclennan, Robert


Coleman, Donald
McNally, Thomas


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
McTaggart, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Magee, Bryan


Cook, Robin F.
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Cowans, Harry
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Craigen, J. M.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Crowther, J. S.
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Cryer, Bob
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Maxton, John


Dalyell, Tam
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davidson, Arthur
Meacher, Michael


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Deakins, Eric
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Dempsey, James
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Dixon, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dormand, Jack
Morton, George


Douglas, Dick
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Dunn, James A.
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Newens, Stanley


Eastham, Ken
O'Halloran, Michael


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Palmer, Arthur


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Parry, Robert


English, Michael
Pendry, Tom


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Penhaligon, David


Evans, John (Newton)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Ewing, Harry
Prescott, John


Fitch, Alan
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Flannery, Martin
Richardson, Jo


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Ford, Ben
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Forrester, John
Rooker, J. W.


Foster, Derek
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Foulkes, George
Sheerman, Barry


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


George, Bruce
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Golding, John
Silverman, Julius


Gourlay, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Graham, Ted
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Spearing, Nigel


Grant, John (Islington C)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Stoddart, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Strang, Gavin


Heffer, Eric S.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Home Robertson, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Homewood, William
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Hooley, Frank
Tilley, John


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Huckfield, Les
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Janner, Hon Greville
Welsh, Michael


John, Brynmor
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Whitlock, William


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)






Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)



Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Frank R. White and


Woodall, Alec
Mr. Frank Haynes.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Ancram, Michael
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Arnold, Tom
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Goodhart, Philip


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Gorst, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gower, Sir Raymond


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Greenway, Harry


Best, Keith
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Biggs-Davison, John
Grist, Ian


Blackburn, John
Gummer, John Selwyn


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Hawksley, Warren


Bowden, Andrew
Hayhoe, Barney


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Henderson, Barry


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hicks, Robert


Bright, Graham
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brittan, Leon
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hooson, Tom


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hordern, Peter


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Buck, Antony
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Budgen, Nick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Burden, Sir Frederick
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Kershaw, Anthony


Chapman, Sydney
King, Rt Hon Tom


Churchill, W. S.
Knight, Mrs Jill


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Knox, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lamont, Norman


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lang, Ian


Cockeram, Eric
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Colvin, Michael
Latham, Michael


Cope, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Corrie, John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Costain, Sir Albert
Le Marchant, Spencer


Cranborne, Viscount
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Critchley, Julian
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Lyell, Nicholas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
MacGregor, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Durant, Tony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Eggar, Tim
McQuarrie, Albert


Elliott, Sir William
Madel, David


Eyre, Reginald
Major, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marland, Paul


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marlow, Tony


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Farr, John
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fell, Anthony
Mawby, Ray


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Mayhew, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Mellor, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Moate, Roger


Fry, Peter
Monro, Hector





Moore, John
Silvester, Fred


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Sims, Roger


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mudd, David
Speed, Keith


Murphy, Christopher
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Myles, David
Sproat, Iain


Neale, Gerrard
Squire, Robin


Needham, Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Nelson, Anthony
Steen, Anthony


Neubert, Michael
Stevens, Martin


Newton, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Normanton, Tom
Stewart, A (E Renfrewshire)


Onslow, Cranley
Stokes, John


Osborn, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Tapsell, Peter


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Parkinson, Cecil
Temple-Morris, Peter


Parris, Matthew
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thompson, Donald


Pink, R. Bonner
Thornton, Malcolm


Pollock, Alexander
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, Barry
Trippier, David


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Viggers, Peter


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Waddington, David


Prior, Rt Hon James
Wakeham, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Walker, B. (Perth)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wall, Patrick


Renton, Tim
Waller, Gary


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Warren, Kenneth


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Wells, Bowen


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Whitney, Raymond


Rossi, Hugh
Wickenden, Keith


Rost, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Scott, Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shelton, William (Streatham)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Richard
Mr. Carol Mather and


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

EXEMPTION FROM LEVIES

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 11, at end insert
'; and the proposals may specify different criteria as respects arrangements made by different categories of employers'.
The amendment will find ready support on both sides of the House. The 1964 Act specificially allows boards to make different provisions for different categories of employer in the case of levy proposals. There is no specific provision enabling the differential to be made in the case of proposals relating to exemption criteria. At present there is an implied power for boards to make different provisions in the case of exemption criteria, because the exemption criteria relate to the needs of the establishment. The Bill changes that so that the exemption criteria will relate to the needs of the industry. It is, therefore, desired to make a specific provision allowing for differentials between employers in the case of exemption criteria.

Mr. Barry Jones: The Minister seeks to ensure that boards continue to be able to make different proposals relating to exemption criteria in respect of different categories of employers. Although we agree with that, we


are a little suspicious. Can the Minister assure us that he is not subject to pressure and is not going back on the line that he took in Committee? One can envisage Ministers being concerned with matters other than the adequacy of training in firms or the industry as a whole when issuing guidance on criteria. They may be lobbied by firms anxious to avoid the levy and their responsibilities.

Mr. Waddington: I give that assurance. The amendment has been introduced because boards already have different exemption criteria for different classes of employers. The amendment ensures that the practice continues to be legal. I shall not take up time by giving examples of where that happens now. Without the amendment, what happens now would not remain legal.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 20, leave out from first 'the' to second `of' in line 26 and insert
'relevant emoluments within the meaning'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8.

Mr. Morrison: The amendment will enable a consensus to a non-exemptible levy above 0·2 per cent. to last for one additional levy order after that originally supported by the consensus, provided that the second order is made within two years of the first and provided also that the non-exemptible part of the levy is at a level no higher than that on which the consensus was originally obtained. The requirement that evidence of consensus must be provided is retained in the case of the first set of levy proposals.
Under the Bill as amended in Committee, an industrial training board can impose a non-exemptible levy of up to 0·2 per cent. of emoluments, without any special procedure, but either a consensus of employers or an affirmative resolution is required on each occasion in order to give effect to proposals for a non-exemptible levy of over 0·2 per cent.
In Committee an amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd). It would have had the effect of the non-exemptible levy of up to 0·2 per cent. lasting for three years. We discussed the matter, and I hope that my hon. Friend now accepts that it should last for two years.

Mr. Barry Jones: Here again we have just the slightest suspicion that the Minister is abandoning his previous strong stance. He may wish to give assurances that he is not giving way to pressures. I may be right in thinking that what he is offering is a tiny increase in a board's power to carry forward a non-exemptible levy arrived at by consensus.
If that is the case, I suppose that we could call this a classic case of modified rapture. It is one small step in the right direction, at any rate for some of the boards. I would welcome assurances on the lines that I have suggested.

Mr. Morrison: I never expected to hear the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) talk about modified

rapture. I assure him that the steps that we are taking are those that he so articulately outlined. I do not think that he need have any fears on the matter.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 6, in page 5, line 30, leave out 'that aggregate' and insert
'the relevent emoluments within the meaning of section 4(2A) of this Act'.—[Mr. Morrison.]

Mr. Michael Shersby: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 5, leave out lines 31 and 32.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 22, in page 5, line 40, leave out 'either—(i)'.
No. 23, in page 6, line 1, leave out paragraph (ii).

Mr. Shersby: In moving the amendment I declare an outside interest that is relevant to the remarks that I shall make. I am an unpaid member of the Food and Drink Industries Council and also director-general of the British Sugar Bureau, which is a member of that council.
The purpose of the amendments is to probe the Government's intentions in connection with levy money paid to training boards even if the levy payable by the employer will not exceed 0·2 per cent. of the payroll where the training standards laid down are met.
I say at the outset that I welcome, as does the Food and Drink Industries Council, the 0·2 per cent. limit placed upon the open-ended liability in the Bill as originally drafted. When the Bill was first published, employers whose own training arrangements were acceptable could be levied for the cost of training of persons employed or to be employed in the industry. It is therefore fair to ask my hon. Friend what it is intended should be done with the levy from those employers who are otherwise exempt. We should like to hear a little about that aspect of the matter.
I turn to the special problems of the food and drink industry, which comes under the Food, Drink and Tobacco Industry Training Board. As my hon. Friend knows, it is the general view of the Food and Drink Industries Council that that training board should be abolished. I entirely agree with that view, because the member associations of the council—the brewers, the bakers, the ice cream manufacturers, the sugar industry, to name but a few—consider that their own in-sector training arrangements are such that the Secretary of State would see no objection to their being removed from the scope of the board.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it abundantly clear that unless satisfactory alternative arrangements exist he will not agree to the board being abolished. I hope that the facts of the matter will impress him. They are that 94 per cent. of all food and drink companies are already granted exemption from levy. That is a very substantial number of employees: 789,788 employees in the industry are in that category where full levy exemption is applied. Indeed, others are entitled to partial levy exemption.
Therefore, since the Food, Drink and Tobacco Industry Training Board covers not only tobacco but such businesses as florists and horticulture, over which an organisation such as the Food and Drink Industries Council has no possible influence, there could be some minor problems, because they do not come within the figures that I have quoted. Nevertheless, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the figures are truly impressive.
The concept that the Manpower Services Commission and the Minister can, at their discretion, act to the disadvantage of employers if they are of the opinion that it is necessary to do so,
to encourage adequate training in the industry
could be a real difficulty for the industry on whose behalf I speak this evening. Instances of this concept occur in clauses 3(4) and 3(5), and it is these that I suggest in my amendment should be deleted from the Bill. Surely the Bill, in providing for exemption from the levies, should do so on the basis that exemption certificates should be issued to exempt from levy employers in the industry
who make arrangements for training or the training and further education associated with training of persons employed by them in the industry.
I stress the words "by them".
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to make industrial training boards work, and to secure the support of industry for a system of exemption from levies, is to make it crystal clear that good employers who make proper arrangements for training in their own firms are exempt from levies? Surely that should be the basis of getting the kind of co-operation from industry which industry is very willing to give.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will lend a sympathetic ear to the amendments. Not only will they provide for the exemption from levy of those firms that provide good training facilities; they will make it clear that the unnecessary burden of good firms having to pay for training in bad firms is removed.
There are other ways of persuading employers whose training facilities are inadequate to make them adequate than by loading good employers with the responsibility for this particular operation. I shall mention a few ideas which help to reinforce this view, because I can see Labour Members looking askance at the concept that I have advocated.
The first priority, certainly in relation to the food and drink industry, is the abolition of the present board, which spends money to very little purpose. If there are any problems attached to its abolition, I know that my right hon. Friend will wish to discuss them with the industry.
The worst position for the food and drink industry would be to continue with the present system. That does not mean that the food and drink industry, or any other industry for that matter, washes its hands of the need to improve the general level of training—the very matter that we have been discussing for some hours this evening.
I can best illustrate this commitment by quoting from a recent statement by the chairman of the Food and Drink Industries Council, Sir Adrian Cadbury. He said:
No one could seriously suggest that our level of training in this country is other than a disgrace. To take one simple figure, in 1977, 55 per cent. of those leaving school here received neither further education nor recognised on-the-job training; the comparable figure in Germany was 5 per cent. We all know that when the upturn comes we will be short of technologists, technicians, craftsmen and even of the semi-skilled people, whose skills are relevant to the jobs we have to fill. The craft apprenticeship system is archaic and does not begin to meet the needs of our companies for multi-craft skills and flexibility.
We are therefore faced, as a country and as an industry, with putting forward some ideas for improving the general level of training."
All hon. Members would agree that that statement illustrates only too clearly the responsible attitude taken by

senior industrialists to the need for better training, even where industrial training boards have been abolished because the industry is doing such a good job.
The Government have made it clear that they are prepared to consider the abolition of certain industrial training boards provided that the relevant industry is prepared to operate a voluntary system. Edition No. 83 of "Employment News", which is published by the Department of Employment, reports my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State as having said:
It is our aim to extend as far as possible reliance on voluntary arrangements.
Voluntary arrangements can be as effective as the statutory approach. I listened with interest to what the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) had to say on this point. There can be little doubt of industry's willingness and ability to make satisfactory voluntary arrangements for the vocational preparation of young people, possible skill shortages in the economic upturn, training needs in the new technologies, the maintenance of training standards and opportunities for craft apprentices and for adult training and retraining.
What possible alternatives are there to the training boards? We could set up similar organisations with a greatly reduced number of employees—perhaps only one-tenth of the present number. That would represent a significant change in the character of training boards. There could be a reorganisation of training boards so that they were fewer in number but wider in scope. That would have the advantage of saving manpower. There is the possibility of setting up regional training boards which would cover manufacturing industries generally. That would have the advantage of recognising that most skill shortages and training problems differ considerably from region to region. Those boards could operate without statutory powers on the basis of a consultancy consisting of staff with relevant industry experience and funded by voluntary contributions from companies.
Those are but a few of the options that my right hon. Friend could discuss with industry where he wishes—after the Bill's enactment—to abolish industrial training boards. My message is that the Government should get on with the abolition of boards for industries which have shown that they are discharging to the full their responsibility for training. The Government should confine the obligation to pay for training to those firms that do not already provide proper training facilities. I ask my right hon. Friend not to request good firms to pay for training in bad firms. Instead, I ask him to encourage voluntary training schemes that are run by industry through the trade associations. That is the way to success, and that is the way to increase the important industrial training opportunities that our country so badly requires.

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has raised some fundamental matters which go further than the considerations to be borne in mind when dealing with the amendments. The amendments deal with a situation in which some boards, at least, have continued in existence. However, I assure my hon. Friend that his remarks about the industry in which he has taken a close interest will be borne in mind, as will his penetrating remarks on general training needs.
The effect of amendment No. 24 is to prevent a levy of more than 0·2 per cent. from ever being imposed on a non-exemptible basis, even if a consensus of employers in


the industry are in favour of such a levy. The amendment has that effect, because under the legislation all levy proposals must be approved by the Manpower Services Commission before they can be implemented by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 24 forbids the commission to approve proposals for a non-exemptible levy of more than 0·2 per cent.
9.45 pm
It would not be right completely to remove the possibility of a non-exemptible levy of more than 0·2 per cent. if the employers' organisations in the industry supported such a levy, as they have in the construction industry. For that reason, I advise the House to reject amendment No. 24.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 would have the effect that there could not be a non-exemptible levy of more than 0·2 per cent. of emoluments unless a consensus of employers was in favour of such a levy. The Bill allows for a levy over 0·2 per cent. when there is a consensus or when the affirmative procedure is used. The effect of the amendments would be to deprive the board of the opportunity to use the affirmative procedure in the House to raise a non-exemptible levy of more than 0·2 per cent.
It would not be right to fetter the board in that way. Our reasons for coming to that conclusion are the reasons that were discussed at length in "Outlook on Training". Those hon. Members who served on the Committee know the passages so well that I do not need to bore the House by repeating them. Although my hon. Friend has raised some interesting matters, there is no justification at this stage to fetter the discretion of the boards in the way that the amendments, if carried, would fetter them.

Mr. Barry Jones: We know that if the Under-Secretary went into the details he would bore the House rather than confuse it. In summing up a complicated set of amendments, may I say that the Opposition are in agreement with the Government.

Mr. Shersby: I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the assurance that he has given that what I have said will be borne in mind. In the many letters that pass between the food and drink industry and Departments of State it is comforting to know that what we have to say is being borne in mind. That is one of the most frequent assurances we receive, but it does not always lead to the action that we desire. Knowing my hon. Friend as I do, I am sure that he will carefully consider the problems that face the food and drink industry. I hope that what I have said will act as an additional spur to my right hon. Friend to lay the necessary order when the time comes. On the basis of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 7, in page 5, line 45, at end insert—

'(ii) the order will be made less than two years after the making of another levy order ("the former order") giving effect to proposals made by the board in respect of which he was satisfied as mentioned in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph and either—
(a) the proposals to which the former order gave effect were that no exemption certificates should be issued or that the exemption certificates to be issued should not exempt employers from any of the levy, or

(b) the proposals to which the former order gave effect were that exemption certificates should not exempt employers from a portion of the levy and the percentage of the relevant emoluments from which under the current proposals the exemption certificates will not exempt any person will not exceed the percentage of relevant emoluments from which he was not exempted under the former order, or'

No. 8, in page 6, line 3, leave out 'and in this paragraph' and insert—

'(b) in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (d) of that subsection for the words from "the aggregate" to the end of the subparagraph there shall be substituted the words "the relevant emoluments, or";
(c) after subsection (2A) there shall be inserted
"(2B) in subsection (2A) above—
'the relevant emoluments' means the aggregate of the emoluments and payments intended to be disbursed as emoluments which are paid and payable by the person in question to or in respect of persons employed in the industry in respect of the period specified in the proposals as the period which is relevant for the purposes of that subsection, and".'.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]

Clause 5

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 7, line 23, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 27.
Clause 5 provides for the application of schedule 1 and contains a reference to the contents of schedule 1. Unfortunately, schedule 1 was amended in Committee, but clause 5 was not amended correspondingly. That shows the folly of trying to spell out in clauses what is later contained in a schedule. To prevent anything else happening from now onwards, from that would need further amendment of clause 5 to change its description of what is contained in the schedule, the best course is to remove any reference in clause 5 to what is contained in the schedule.

Mr. Barry Jones: The Minister is dealing with a technicality. As I understand it, he is unhappy with the reference to schedule 1 in the clause. Are not
members and servants of industrial training boards and their committees, the publication of information by the boards and the transfer between boards of establishments' activities
important matters? What persuasive case can the Minister mount to urge us to let him have his way? Is it not the case that the Department is proposing less open government?

Mr. Waddington: The draftsman was trying to be helpful. To save people the trouble of having to refer at the same time both to clauses and to the schedule, he decided to try to repeat in clause 5 what was written into the schedule. It is all surplusage, which we can do without.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO INDUSTRIAL TRAINING ACT 1964

Mr. Peter Morrison: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 9, line 41, at end insert—
'3. After subsection (5) of section 9 of that Act there shall be inserted—
(5A) Where an order has been made under subsection (1)(b) of this section for the winding up of a board, the Minister may out of moneys provided by Parliament—



(a) pay such pension, superannuation allowance or gratuity to or in respect of the former chairman of the board as he may with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service determine; and
(b) pay such sums as he may so determine to the trustees of the Industrial Training Boards' Combined Pension Fund for the purpose of meeting the whole or part of any shortfall in the assets of the Fund referable to the pensions, superannuation allowances and gratuities payable in respect of the former officers and servants of the board.".'.

The powers given in the amendment are essential to protect the present pension rights of ITB staff who might be made redundant as a result of the winding up of boards. Our general desire to do this must be backed by a specific undertaking and power to make up deficits in the pension fund that may build up after the boards are wound up and that are attributable to their pension rights. I hope that the House will recognise that this is a necessary and proper commitment to the rights of people whose jobs could disappear as a result of decisions following the passage of the Bill. I hope that the amendment will command the support of both sides of the House.

Mr. Hooky: My only query relates to subsection (b), which states:
for the purpose of meeting the whole or part of any shortfall".
As the Government will be responsible for causing the shortfall by winding up the boards, why are they not entering into an obligation to meet the whole of any shortfall in the assets of the fund so that they can meet their obligations? In what circumstances would the Government refuse to meet the whole of the shortfall? Why should they refuse to meet the whole of the shortfall when they have created the situation in which the pension fund cannot meet its obligations?
If it is suggested that "someone else" shall meet the other part, who is that someone else and under what conditions will that someone else be called upon to meet the shortfall? What is the full purpose of these words?

Mr. Peter Morrison: The fund will be divided into two parts. Part of it will be for those boards that remain on a statutory basis and the other part will be for those statutory training boards that are no longer in existence. We discussed the amendment about six hours ago when talking about the money resolution and related matters.
Employees of training boards who, as a result of those boards not being in existence five, 10 or 15 years—or even one—from now, but who will benefit in five, 10 or 15 years' time, will be secure as a result of the Government being able to top up the pension fund accordingly.

Mr. Robert Taylor: I seek slightly more information from my hon. Friend. Will Parliament be able to see the accounts of the industrial training boards' combined pension fund? We are passing what might be a heavy commitment to the taxpayer of the future. These are index-linked pensions in the public sector. They are heavy burdens for the taxpayer to undertake. Have the Government had to top up the fund before today? What is the potential liability? Will my hon. Friend amplify the situation? Will he give an assurance that the audited accounts will be available to the House?

Mr. Morrison: The topping up of the fund has, in effect, been done through operating costs in the past. I cannot envisage a situation in which this Government, in particular, will open their hands wide for money to be grabbed from them. My hon. Friend need have no concern

about the matter. The Government cannot commit themselves, and are not commiting themselves to underwriting index linking for ever. If as a result of the present review across the whole Government spectrum index linking is changed for other public servants, it will be changed for ITB employees.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 10, line 7, leave out paragraph 4.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 16, in page 10, leave out lines 11 and 12.

Mr. Walker: Paragraph 4 of schedule 1 was inserted by the Under-Secretary of State in the dying minutes of the Standing Committee. I was not present. I read in the Official Report what happened. My first reaction was that the Minister's officials must have been horrified when he accepted an amendment, which now forms paragraph 4 of schedule 1, moved by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd). I can only assume that the Minister acted out of gratitude for the acquiescence shown at that stage of the proceedings and felt that he owed something in response. His action can be described as "Hacker strikes back", but it has done enormous damage to the statutory structure of the industry.
The assumption behind the amendment in Standing Committee seemed to be that the training levy paid to the training boards was met by employers dipping their hands into their own pockets. The overwhelming proportion of levy is paid by companies. These are corporate bodies that bring together the mutual interests of management, shareholders and workers within the enterprise. The interest of the worker in the enterprise is probably more important. He cannot take out his life and put it somewhere else, as a shareholder can take out his money and put it somewhere else. It is time to stop talking about the employer paying the levy as if it came out of his bank account. The money belongs to the company. The employees have as much responsibility for that money as anyone else. The workpeople and the shareholders have an equal say in these matters.
The insertion of paragraph 4 gives an exclusive right to decide about levy to a majority of employers on the board. This applies equally to the non-returnable levy, the pan of the levy that can be raised to meet the operating costs—the staff salaries and pension arrangements—of the board.
If employers combined together they could, either deliberately or accidentally, cripple or kill off a board. This would give employers a power that exceeds by far that of the Secretary of State or of Parliament to cripple or kill off boards. I do not rule out the possibility of employers organising themselves so that they have representatives on an industrial training board who, when the need arises for renewal of the annual levy, arrange that there shall be a motion, for example, of nil levy—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Employment and Training Bill and the Education (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Employment and Training Bill

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Mr. Walker: A majority of the employers on an industrial training board could get together and conspire so that when the levy became renewable they moved for a nil levy, the effect of which would be to kill the board.
If the Government want that, they should say so. If they do not, they should accept the amendment and sweep paragraph 4 from the schedule. Otherwise, there will be serious consequences for everyone engaged in the industrial training boards and for the future of the boards, which, presumably, the Secretary of State wants to retain.

Mr. Craigen: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) piloted paragraph 4 through the Committee in the last stage of its proceedings, and the Minister fully supported him. I recall the Minister's saying that it was the only time during the whole Committee proceedings that he had agreed with the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor).
A fundamental change was made by the paragraph to the constitution of the boards. The hon. Member for Fareham is a former editor of Crossbow. He certainly scored a bull's eye for the Government in producing this result in Committee. However, in doing so he brought to an end the co-determination that has existed within our system of industrial training boards during the past 15 or 16 years.
I wondered why parity of representation had been introduced in the original 1964 legislation. I checked and found that the Deputy Prime Minister, in a previous incarnation, was Parliamentary Secretary the then Ministry of Labour. He took the view that both sides of industry had a contribution to make to the improvement of training and that it was therefore important that there should be equity of representation on the boards.
In moving from a statutory to a voluntary system, I hope that the Government know what they are doing by accepting this major change in the constitution of the boards. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster pointed out, the employers need only to move for a nil levy to produce effective voluntary euthanasia for industrial training boards.
I have always taken the view that training boards can be improved; they are by no means perfect institutions. The trouble is that opinion within the country, particularly in management circles, has never accepted that training is an instrument for improving the productivity and performance, and indeed the personality, of the company or organisation. I very much regret this move. I hope the Government will have second thoughts about its full implications.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I looked through the proceedings of the Committee to try to find an explanation for the amendment, but I could not find one. Those not privileged to serve on the Committee have the duty of going out to industry, in my case the furniture industry, to explain to trade unions, which have played such a vital role in making the industry viable and with which manufacturers have a good relationship, why the Government decided that only employers' views and votes would be taken into account.
It is incumbent upon the Secretary of State to come clean. Why can we not continue the principle of a shared

decision? The Secretary of State reiterated that he places complete faith in industry being a partnership, with workers and management playing their role and with each side having an equal say. The Secretary of State says that he will continue this approach by allowing the development of confidence between employers and trade unions. How does he justify paragraph 4? That must inevitably exclude people. It must mean that a decision will be taken by employers and everyone else involved in the enterprise will simply be told what the decision is. I can see no justification for paragraph 4.
It is said that employers pay the levy, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said, they pay it as a company and not as individuals. Therefore, it is a company responsibility, and we must remember that a company comprises management and workers. All those working in the enterprise ought to have an equal opportunity to have their say. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell those of us who were not on the Committee why he believes that the ordinary principles of shared responsibility are not acceptable and why employers should be given a specific opportunity to do what they like.
Counter decisions taken in smoke-filled rooms somewhere else may be guided, as it were, by groups and authorities from outside. Organisations such as Aims for Freedom may give briefings and try to organise; they would become a kind of seventh estate. This is a dangerous practice. The House would be unwise to allow all of paragraph 4 to remain in the Bill. I intend to vote in favour of the amendment. The Secretary of State must tell us exactly why a change is needed.

Mr. Prior: If I direct my remarks chiefly to amendment No. 15, it does not mean that I have not taken into account the other amendments on the Notice Paper. To explain, present legislation provides that an industrial training board must consist of a chairman, an equal number of people appointed after consultation with organisations of employers and workers in the industry respectively—that is, an equal number of employer representatives and worker representatives—and people appointed after consultation with the Education Ministers. There may or may not be a deputy chairman as well. Only employer and worker members may vote on any matter relating to the imposition of a levy.
Paragraph 4 of schedule 1, which was inserted at the end of the Committee stage by a Back-Bench amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), requires in addition that no matter related to the imposition of a levy can be decided except in accordance with the votes of the majority of the employer members. In other words, when the levy is decided at the appropriate time of the year, a majority of the employers and the employer members of the board have to vote in favour of it.
Hon. Members have asked me why the Government accepted that amendment. I shall try to explain why. The Government believe that employers in an industry should pay for the operating costs of a training board for that industry, just as they would have to do if training in their industry were covered by a voluntary organisation. Under the legislation, employers in due course will bear all the costs of the board—operating costs, as well as the costs of providing training and paying grants, except any derived from Exchequer funds.
It is right, therefore, that employer representatives on boards should not be forced against their will to go along with the key decisions of boards about raising money from employers. We therefore believe that it is right to strengthen the position of employers on boards. That accords with the basic principle of "He who pays the piper calls the tune".
One of the general criticisms of training boards is that they have wasted money. They are not perfect, but nor are they imperfect. However, it is only reasonable that those who have to provide the cash—it makes no difference whether they are managers or employers—should be responsible for the manner in which a company's money is spent. They want good value for that money. It is therefore not unreasonable that he who pays the piper calls the tune. That is why we accepted my hon. Friend's amendment.
Employer organisations have told me that their representatives on boards should be given greater power than heretofor. They contend that unless their representatives are in dominant position they would not trust boards not to pursue policies inappropriate to their industries' needs and not to run their operations at excessive cost. I have been pressed very hard to give employers a majority seat on boards. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) wants. I am not prepared to go that far. I take the point made earlier by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) about my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) having been the Parliamentary Secretary. There is a contribution that both sides of industry—employers and employee representatives—can make together.
I believe that the structure now proposed in the Bill is appropriate. It gives employers protection against excessive demands for money, provided that they organise themselves to make use of that protection, while at the same time preserving the tripartite structure of boards. To go further would reduce the proper influence of unions and education interests in training and risk losing their support at a time when we want their co-operation in securing essential reforms.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that we have given employers a way of throttling boards by allowing them to veto levy proposals. That is an unreal suggestion. The reality is that members of training boards have a common interest in seeing that adequate training is provided and in agreeing sensible levy proposals to secure the necessary training provision. That common interest is likely to be strongest in those industries where boards are retained, since those may well be industries in which the demand for training in skills cannot be satisfied on a voluntary basis. Employer representatives on boards have a particular interest in seeing that all employers contribute to training provisions and that companies are not constrained by a lack of skilled labour. The appointment of membership of boards is in my hands, and I shall want to appoint people who have a commitment to adequate training, not people intent on minimising the short-term cost to employers.
10.15 pm
In the last resort I have powers, reinforced by the Bill, to insist on satisfactory levy proposals and to declare a board that fails to agree to be in default. In that event I could replace the recalcitrant members.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster and his hon. Friends are not justified in their argument. I believe that we are taking the right step. It destroys neither the structure of the boards nor their composition. It gives employers that extra power, if they want to discipline themselves, to keep the cost to the minimum.
If we are to retain a number of statutory boards, which hon. Members have suggested we need, we have to build up the confidence of employers that the boards will be run efficiently, economically and non-bureaucratically. With that in mind we accepted an amendment in Committee. I commend that amendment and the present position to the House.
It would be a great mistake to think that the structure of the boards was absolutely right before. We need to give a little extra power and discipline to the employers. I hope that they will use that power wisely in the interests of training. The country cannot afford to waste money, nor can industry. If employers spend more money on training and less on the frivolities, we shall be better pleased with the result.

Mr. Harold Walker: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond. The Secretary of State ignored all that I said when he talked about he who pays the piper. It is sometimes assumed that the employer pays out of his pocket, when he is in fact using company money. The company is a corporate entity consisting not only of shareholders but of workers and managers.
The 1964 Act, which was passed by a Conservative Government with support from both sides of the House, did not make the type of provision contained in the Bill. There was a reality of power sharing to bring together the experience and confidence of both sides of industry. The Secretary of State has been deeply divisive. His proposal is disruptive and against an agreed bipartisan policy.
I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's confidence that he is responsible for making appointments to the boards. Ministers cannot have sufficient familiarity wath the people whom they appoint. Ministers take advice from people nominated by the organisations involved. Names are put forward by officials. I do not quarrel with that, but I quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to convince the House that he will know who he is appointing.
Does the Secretary of State really believe that the trade unions will be happy to send their busy, highly professional, full-time trade union officials, who have enormous demands on their time, to sit on industrial training boards, where they will be neutered and where their role will be only advisory? The right hon. Gentleman's speech tonight was yet another attack on the trade union movement.

Mr. Hooley: The Secretary of State's statement is about the most insulting reference to trade union representatives that I have heard. He said that they are not concerned with efficiency, economy or the proper running of the boards, and that financial control must be exclusively in the hands of the employers. He implied that all trade union workers have no financial stake in the industry in which they work, when their work creates the funds to finance the boards. It is insulting to suggest that they should have no say in the control of the levy. It deliberately creates two classes of member on the board. One group takes the decision about the finances, and the


other group sits around and advises on certain matters. However, once the financial structure is determined, whatever can be done by the board is limited by that.
I am not inclined to share the fears of some of my colleagues that the employers may declare a nil levy and destroy the board. They would realise the political repercussions of doing so, which would be serious. However, it is insulting to suggest that trade union representatives on the board are not concerned about economy, efficiency and the proper running of training in their industry. The Secretary of State made a disgraceful speech.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 249.

Division No. 215]
[10.20 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Evans, John (Newton)


Adams, Allen
Ewing, Harry


Allaun, Frank
Field, Frank


Anderson, Donald
Fitch, Alan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flannery, Martin


Ashton, Joe
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ford, Ben


Beith, A. J.
Forrester, John


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Foster, Derek


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Foulkes, George


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
George, Bruce


Bradley, Tom
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ginsburg, David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Golding, John


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Graham, Ted


Buchan, Norman
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Grant, John (Islington C)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Campbell, Ian
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Canavan, Dennis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Carmichael, Neil
Haynes, Frank


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Heffer, Eric S.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Cohen, Stanley
Home Robertson, John


Coleman, Donald
Homewood, William


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hooley, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Cook, Robin F.
Huckfield, Les


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Crowther, J. S.
Janner, Hon Greville


Cryer, Bob
John, Brynmor


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Davidson, Arthur
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Deakins, Eric
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David


Dewar, Donald
Lamond, James


Dixon, Donald
Leighton, Ronald


Dobson, Frank
Lestor, Miss Joan


Dormand, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Douglas, Dick
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Litherland, Robert


Dunn, James A.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Eastham, Ken
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
McCartney, Hugh


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McKelvey, William


English, Michael
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Maclennan, Robert





McNally, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


McTaggart, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Magee, Bryan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Short, Mrs Renée


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Silverman, Julius


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Skinner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Mikardo, Ian
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stoddart, David


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Morton, George
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Tilley, John


Newens, Stanley
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


O'Halloran, Michael
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


O'Neill, Martin
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Michael


Palmer, Arthur
White, Frank R.


Parry, Robert
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Pendry, Tom
Whitlock, William


Penhaligon, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Race, Reg
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Richardson, Jo
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Winnick, David


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Woodall, Alec


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Robertson, George
Young, David (Bolton E)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)



Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Ryman, John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Burden, Sir Frederick


Alexander, Richard
Butcher, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Chapman, Sydney


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Churchill, W. S.


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Best, Keith
Cockeram, Eric


Bevan, David Gilroy
Colvin, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Cope, John


Blackburn, John
Corrie, John


Body, Richard
Costain, Sir Albert


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cranborne, Viscount


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Critchley, Julian


Bowden, Andrew
Crouch, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Dorrell, Stephen


Brittan, Leon
Dover, Denshore


Brooke, Hon Peter
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Durant, Tony


Browne, John (Winchester)
Dykes, Hugh


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eggar, Tim


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Elliott, Sir William


Buck, Antony
Eyre, Reginald


Budgen, Nick
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bulmer, Esmond
Fairgrieve, Russell






Faith, Mrs Sheila
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Farr, John
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fell, Anthony
Mawby, Ray


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Mayhew, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Mellor, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Miscampbell, Norman


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Fry, Peter
Moate, Roger


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Monro, Hector


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Moore, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Goodhart, Philip
Mudd, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Murphy, Christopher


Gorst, John
Myles, David


Gower, Sir Raymond
Neale, Gerrard


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Nelson, Anthony


Greenway, Harry
Neubert, Michael


Grieve, Percy
Newton, Tony


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Normanton, Tom


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Onslow, Cranley


Grist, Ian
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Gummer, John Selwyn
Osborn, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Hannam, John
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Haselhurst, Alan
Parkinson, Cecil


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Parris, Matthew


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hayhoe, Barney
Patten, John (Oxford)


Henderson, Barry
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hicks, Robert
Percival, Sir Ian


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pollock, Alexander


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Porter, Barry


Hooson, Tom
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Hordern, Peter
Prior, Rt Hon James


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Jenkin, Rt Hon patrick
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rifkind, Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rossi, Hugh


Kershaw, Anthony
Rost, Peter


Kimball, Marcus
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom
Scott, Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Jill
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Knox, David
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Lamont, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shepherd, Richard


Latham, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Sims, Roger


Le Marchant, Spencer
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speed, Keith


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin


Loveridge, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lyell, Nicholas
Stanley, John


McCrindle, Robert
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, John
Stevens, Martin


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Stewart, A (E Renfrewshire)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Stokes, John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stradling Thomas, J.


McQuarrie, Albert
Tapsell, Peter


Madel, David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Major, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter





Thompson, Donald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Thornton, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Whitney, Raymond


Trippier, David
Wickenden, Keith


Viggers, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Waddington, David
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Wakeham, John
Wolfson, Mark


Waldegrave, Hon William
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walker, B. (Perth)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.



Wall, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Ward, John
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Warren, Kenneth

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]

Mr. Barry Jones: Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. David Penhaligon: Too long.

Mr. Jones: The economic background against which the Bill must work is truly daunting. The most recent memorandum by Sir Richard O'Brien to the National Economic Development Council postulates that almost 1 million jobs were lost in 1980, that 700,000 of those jobs were lost in manufacturing industries, that the recession is much deeper than past ones, that labour shedding continues apace and on an unprecedented scale, that next year 713,000 18-year-olds and under will present themselves to the labour market and that unemployment might level off at 3 million. That shows the magnitude of the task of recovery. The question to be asked is: can the Bill help in that task of recovery?
We believe that the Bill is dangerous and that it has trampled the MSC into the ground by denuding it of powers in clause 1. It has angered much of industry by stating that operating costs should be returned to employers next year. In addition, the Bill has offended the tripartite participants in training by its sudden appearance at the turn of the year and in advance of the MSC's sectoral review of the training boards.
The Government have ignored the MSC by ignoring the main recommendation of the report "Outlook on Training", which stated that radical changes in the existing structures of training industry should not be affected. The Bill runs counter to that.
In addition, 23 training board chairmen have denounced the measure, and the TUC and CBI have united in criticising it. Mr. Ken Graham, the TUC assistant general secretary, has said that not one clause of the Bill will improve training and the supply of skilled manpower. This measure, which embraces voluntarism, will not cope with the critical training demands springing from the computer revolution in Western Europe. Additionally, the 1 per cent. ceiling on levy is arbitrary and mistaken.
There is an alarming drop in the number of apprenticeships in industry. This year it is 60,000, which is a 25 per cent. decline from the 80,000 last year. Ely September one in two school leavers will face only the dole. It is estimated that in 1982, it will be one in three. It is no exaggeration to say that the provision of apprenticeships faces imminent collapse in some areas. Companies have already to started to cut back on apprenticeships, and our industrial seed corn is at risk.
Even worse, in the midst of the crisis, the Government have turned on the MSC. It is to suffer a cut in staff of


1,700 and over three years will lose £80 million funding. The staff and money cut would have helped to give a better service to the growing army of the unemployed. The disabled, ethnic minorities and the long-term unemployed will feel the harsh effects of the cuts.
The Government have avoided answering basic questions. I ask again why they aim to scrap training boards, except in a few key sectors? If they work, why deny them to the rest of the economy? If they do not, why impose them on key sectors? Why have the Government opted to reintroduce voluntarism, which was discredited and abandoned by a Tory Government in 1964? What arrangements will be made for health and training under the voluntary system that the right hon. Gentleman is ushering in? Why will the Government not give an assurance that the £50 million that is to be withdrawn will be spent on training?
We protest that throughout the Bill's progress we have not had answers to the fundamental questions that we have persistently asked. The Ministers have wriggled, prevaricated and dodged. The Bill is a disgrace and must be defeated.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I welcome the Bill and hope that the House will give it a Third Reading. My right hon. Friend said that the training boards were neither perfect nor imperfect. The Bill recognises that. It gives the Government the flexibility to have full statutory boards and to employ voluntary arrangements.
Hon. Members who have received representations from training boards will be aware that all is not well. I have a wad of letters from companies supporting the work of the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board. Equally, many small companies in my constituency have had very sharp words to say about some of the other training boards.
My particular concern is with the Engineering Industry Training Board, which employs about 400 of my constituents in Watford at its headquarters and also at its Eastern and Southern regional offices. It is the largest of the training boards, covering about 3 million employees and about 25,000 firms. The engineering industry provides 14 per cent. of all employment in this country, no less than 12 per cent. of our GNP and £20 billion annual exports for the United Kingdom. It includes not only mechanical and electrical engineering training but key sectors such as aerospace, electronics and North Sea oil engineering and construction. There can, therefore, be no doubt that this is a vital sector, and I and my constituents are in no doubt that the statutory position of the Engineering Industry Training Board is essential to its success.
There are two matters on which I am glad to say that the management of the EITB and the unions are in agreement in my constituency. The first is the return of operating cost funding to the industry. This was welcomed by the APEX branch of the EITB in a memorandum laid before the Employment Committee in February this year. Also in February this year the management wrote to me saying:
We would like our industry to be in control of the EITB. We want to be a service to industry and not an instrument of Government.
The transfer to funding by the industry, however, raises a serious problem for the EITB, which I wish to put to my

hon. Friend. The Government have said that they intend to reduce support for industrial training boards in 1981–82 and to withdraw it completely in 1982–83. As things stand, this would mean that the EITB would need to be self-financing from 1 January 1982. If the decision about the board's future is not known until July, very little time will be available for it to decide on what basis the money is to be raised and to carry out the necessary consultations with the industry. Indeed, if the levy is to be in excess of 1 per cent., I understand that an affirmative resolution of both Houses will be needed. If things run as they seem to be scheduled at present, all of those decisions will have to be taken by the board in six weeks if the scheme is to be published before the start of the next training year. I very much hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be able to give some indication that he will be sympathetic about the timing of the transfer.
My constituents rightly believe that they are playing a vital role in one of the key sectors on which the country's future depends. The memorandum submitted by the APEX branch of the EITB in Watford ends with these words:
We believe that our members, in working for the EITB, perform a vital job for the future survival of the engineering industry in Britain. We are proud to do that job and we wish to see it continued and extended in the future. We believe it is a job for which adequate financial and other resources must be found.
I am glad to say that those words were echoed by the management of the EITB, who wrote to me on 5 June this year as follows:
Now that it has been publicly acknowledged by the engineering Employers Federation and most engineering sector working parties of NEDO among others that voluntary training arrangements in the engineering industry would be impracticable, we are looking forward with some confidence and some impatience to the ministerial decision about the future shape of the board. It is high time we were able to give our undivided attention to our raison d'être—the stimulation of high quality and efficient training in the engineering industry.
I hope that Opposition Members will refrain from taking such a frivolous attitude to matters that are extremely important to many of my constituents, in particular to members of the APEX trade union. The letter ends:
We hope that the legislation will progress without undue delay and that we shall have a clear and positive statement from the Secretary of State about our future before the end of this parliamentary Session.
I hope that the House will do as the Engineering Industry Training Board wishes and give the Bill a Third Reading with due dispatch.

Mr. Hooley: The Government have spent a lot of their time in the past two years in destroying or undermining what Labour Governments achieved. The Bill is unique, because this time the Government are deliberately setting out to destroy what previous Conservative Governments enacted.
The basis of the statutory training boards was laid by the Conservative Government's enactment in 1964 and put into effect very largely by the Labour Government who succeeded them. Those arrangements were then superseded by Conservative legislation in 1973, which is the foundation of the present structure of the statutory training system in this country, and it is those two pieces of Conservative legislation, carried through the House by Conservative Governments, that will be undermined by the Bill.
Not only have the Government ignored the experience that led them to put through that legislation in 1964 and 1973; they have deliberately ignored the advice of the Manpower Services Commission, which they created in the 1973 legislation. The MSC carried through a wide-ranging review in 1979–80 of the present structure. It did not recommend anything remotely resembling the provisions of the Bill, and that review has been ignored. In effect the Government have said to the MSC "Go back and produce another review that will please us and satisfy our ideological prejudices."
A serious crisis is developing in craft and other training in industry. The frivolity of Conservative Members is regrettable. Many of them have come in at the end of a long debate in which they have taken no part and have listened to none of the speeches. They have come here to cackle and chatter at the end of a long debate on a matter of fundamental importance to the economy of this country. The skills and training of our manpower and womanpower in this country are of the greatest possible importance, and a crisis is developing.
In Sheffield, the Engineering Industry Training Board has a splendid training centre in Petre Street, with places for 300 apprentices. It is a fine building, with a fine staff and good equipment. It would normally expect to get 280 or 300 apprentices sent to it by engineering firms in Sheffield every year. This coming year it is expecting 40 at the most. That is one-seventh of the craft apprentice training that it would normally expect to take in year by year. That is the extent of the training crisis caused by the slump and the recession engineered by the economic policies of the Government.
What does the Bill do? Far from suggesting that the structure created by Conservative Governments in 1964 and 1973 be strengthened, that more money be spent and that the system be enhanced, it is suggesting a throwback to the so-called voluntary system, which the Government had to admit in 1964 had failed the nation and had to be replaced.
Why, therefore, have we before us this wretched and miserable Bill? There are two reasons. First, there are the objections of the Poujadiste small business mentality, which does not like to be involved in training, does not like statutory obligations, and does not want to be bothered with its duties to train the manpower of this country. As has been said, by and large, the big companies have carried out and are still carrying out training. However, many small companies do not want to be bothered. It is significant that the protests, moans and groans of Conservative Members throughout the debate have reflected the retailing and the hotel and catering industries. Such industries have rotten training and industrial relations records. They have never shown much interest in training or in looking after their employees.
The second reason for the Bill is the so-called saving of £50 million. The Government are obsessed with penny notebook economics. They say that if the Treasury spends £50 million it is public expenditure and therefore wrong. If £50 million is pushed on to industry, the Government say that it is not public expenditure and that it is all right. In real terms, the result is the same. If the country spends £50 on organising training the general effect on the economy will be the same whether the money has come from the Treasury or from the pockets of industrialists. With this wretched Government's penny notebook economics, they claim that there is a £50 million saving.

If the Government are arguing that by transferring the money it will not be spent, that is the same as saying that the volume of training will decline. If the money is not spent, training will suffer.
The Bill is destructive and unnecessary. It has caused grave disquiet to many of the more responsible and thoughtful Conservative Members. On Second Reading we heard a catalogue of complaints from Conservative Back Benchers. In addition, in Committee there were signs of a similar disquiet. The Bill is unnecessary and damaging, and I shall take great pleasure in voting against it.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I support the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). I shall not go over the same arguments. However, the Government's attitude has been made clear. The Secretary of State has always argued that he understood that training involved an agreement or partnership in industry. He has always argued that training would be carried out properly only if all those involved were willing to take part in it.
Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman has made the most appalling attack on trade union representatives. I do not know how he can justify the argument that only the employer's representatives can be objective. It is an extraordinary assertion. I intervened earlier and asked for an explanation, but he did not give me one. He merely asserted that he who paid the piper called the tune. We have often heard that sentiment expressed. I tried to point out that employees pay the piper as much as anyone else. For example, safety is an important element. Training involves learning to understand one another. Therefore, to argue that only the employers' representatives have the acumen to understand business issues, that they alone will be objective when determining how much money to spend and that they alone have the ability to judge what has to be done is to make an appalling claim that cannot be substantiated.
The claim cannot be substantiated by citing the furniture industry. The Furniture Industry Training Board has an excellent record. Both sides of the board have agreements. No one has ever suggested that trade union representatives cannot judge the work to be done. It has never been suggested that they were mischievous enough to try to charge more money. Such a claim could not be proved. The Secretary of State said that more money should be spent on training and less on frivolity. The chairmen of industrial training boards are usually employers. That was one of the criteria used when making appointments.
Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that Mr. Burton—who was a business man in the furniture trade—has been raising money and spending it on frivolity rather than on training? I do not know where he is spending it. I have no evidence of that if he has been doing it. The charge that the Minister has made in the House must be supported by him. He has done much harm to industrial relations, and he has set back industrial training a long way.
I cannot advise my colleagues in the trade union to be interested in co-operating if the Secretary of State's view is that board officials are wastrels, that they do not understand the business, and that they can simply be told how much money they can have and after that no one is


interested. If a board is given insufficient money to carry out its task, what is the point of discussing the board's work? It will have no role, however much money will be raised.
We are in a crisis, and I regret that. I am not against boards being changed, advanced or improved. That must be done. I started by viewing the Bill in an objective frame of mind. I wanted to see whether there was anything that we could do to improve the status of industrial training boards. As time has passed I have become utterly disenchanted. The answers from Ministers have been evasive and shifty, even to the few questions that I have asked. The Minister could have been helpful and have answered my four questions. It would not have taken long to explain them. He has done a mountain of harm. I shall vote against the Bill tonight, not because I object to it, but because I object to the way in which the Government have produced it and how Ministers have behaved.
I have read all the reports of the Committee proceedings and, as I suggested in my intervention, I tried to find reasons for paragraph 4 of schedule 1. There are no such reasons in the reports. I asked the Minister whether he would do me the courtesy of explaining paragraph 4. He ignored my question. When I tried to intervene, he claimed pressure of time, that he had much to say and did not want to delay the House. Three sentences later he sat down.
My objection to the Bill is that the Government regard industrial training as a joke and believe that the Bill is what the Back Bench backwoodsmen want. They must understand that they are undermining and will make impossible further work in industrial relations and industrial training in industry. They have put the subject back a decade, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Craigen: This is a bad Bill, and it has not improved during its progress through the House. It is the £50 million Bill, because the reason for it is to save public expenditure and avoid the necessity of giving Exchequer subsidies to industrial training boards. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) that the Bill will prove to be a costly symbolism to British industry.
I have received a letter from an employer which sums it up. He sent a copy of it to the Secretary of State. Mr. William Nicol told me that he had read the reports of the nine sittings of Standing Committee D. He concluded by saying:
The opposition won the debate, but regrettably lost the vote".

Mr. Foster: I hope that Conservative Members recognise that the Government's record on industrial training is disastrous and has been made worse by the Bill. At the time of the last general election we were paraded with the stage army of Saatchi and Saatchi employees pretending to be unemployed and telling us that Labour was not working and that one of the answers was that there would be a substantial increase in training and retraining. It was argued that we would have to sweep away all the non-jobs, that Britain was vastly overmanned and that we had to get rid of all the heavily subsidised jobs throughout British society.
The Government said that they would vastly increase training and retraining. But what has happened? The burden of taxation has increased, failing to galvanise us all into entrepreneurial activity. There has been no flowing of funds into the private sector. We now learn that the underlying rate of inflation is increasing as well. In the face of all those failures, when will we have the long-promised increase in training and retraining?
The Secretary of State has come forward with his training initiative, the objectives of which we approve, but at the same time he has brought forward this legislation, which will completely scupper his ability to deliver the goods. This is a disastrous Bill, which ought to be thrown out.

11 pm

Mr. Eric G. Varley: Before commenting on the Bill, and now that we have reached its final stages in the House, I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) and six other colleagues who did so well in Committee in exposing the inadequacies of the Bill. It is a retrograde and damaging measure.
By persisting with the Bill the Secretary of State and his colleagues have destroyed the bipartisan support on training that has built up between the two major political parties over many years. Since the 1964 Act the principle of expanded and statutory training provisions has had wide support, not only in the House, but among sensible people in the country.
It has never been our view—my hon. Friends brought this out during today's debate—that the structure of training boards, once established, should be set for all time. In the very nature of things there needs to be a periodic review, and some modifications of the boards may become necessary, but that should come about only through proper consultation and check, and only with proper examination by the MSC.
If that was the Government's only intention, no additional statutory powers would be necessary. However, the powers now being sought in the Bill are blunt and arbitrary. Tory Ministers could bludgeon through changes against the wishes and the best interests of the training boards. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us how he hopes to proceed. Will he carry through changes merely for the sake of change and to satisfy some of the prejudices of his hon. Friends?
Even today both the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary said that they wanted to extend the area of, and reliance upon, voluntary arrangements. Such bland assertions by the Secretary of State and his colleagues are unsupported by any of the facts. Such statements fly in the face of every scrap of experience not only in Britain but throughout the world and among our overseas competitors.
Worst of all, the Government are pressing ahead with the Bill in advance of the review of training by the MSC, which it has been asked to complete later this year. That is a shabby and shameful way in which to treat the MSC. Also, the Government are determined to ignore the representations they have received from the chairmen of the industrial training boards. In other words, the collective view of men who have dedicated their time and experience to the training boards has been brushed aside.
Our economy has deteriorated at an unbelievable rate over the past two years. Now we are told by Ministers that there is to be some upturn, although I cannot see much evidence for it. Before too long, some stimulus will have to be given to the economy. There could not be a worse time in the history of our nation to plunge training provisions into doubt and uncertainty.
On Second Reading the Secretary of State said that in future men and women would need to be trained not once, not twice, but perhaps three times during their working lives. How on earth will that be accomplished on the basis of voluntarism and weekend training arrangements? During the past two years great damage has been inflicted on our nation. None of the damage is more unacceptable than this attack on our training systems. Putting people to work with skills is not only more productive, but makes for social cohesion and social harmony.
As a country, we shall pay a high price for undermining the work of the industrial training boards and for refusing to establish a powerful manpower training policy. The Bill will do a great deal of damage. It has created uncertainty. It will damage our training provisions and weaken the morale of those charged with providing training provisions. An incoming Labour Government will act with great urgency to repair the damage that the Bill has caused. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Prior: The House has heard a lot of hot air from Opposition Members tonight. They talk about the damage that the Bill will cause, while knowing perfectly well that clause 1, which gives the Secretary of State and the Government the authority to decide whether training boards should continue in a voluntary or compulsory role, represents an amendment that the Labour Opposition moved in 1973. Now they say precisely the opposite. Why was it right in 1973 but wrong in 1981?
In 1973 the Labour Opposition thought that it must be right for the Government, at the end of the day, to be able to take decisions. Of course it must be right. However, it is also right that the Government should consult the Manpower Services Commission and that there should be a proper review, as is now being carried out. The Government have taken no decisions about the boards to be made voluntary and the boards that will remain compulsory and statutory, and will not do so until the review is completed and the results become available.
All the stuff that we have heard from Opposition Members is a lot of nonsense. The Government's position, as set out in the Bill, is that, following the review that the Manpower Services Commission is now conducting, sector by sector, the commission will report its views to the Government, in some cases, I hope, by the end of this month, and in all cases, I hope, by the end of July. The Government will consider the views put forward. I hope that it will be possible to make final announcements early in the autumn. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) is right in saying that decisions need to be made about the future of training boards as quickly as is reasonably possible. That is my intention. I cannot tell my hon. Friend tonight whether certain boards will be kept in a statutory or voluntary capacity. A decision will depend largely upon the advice that I receive from the Manpower Services Commission.
The Bill—it is very much an enabling measure—enables the Government to transfer the operating cost from public expenditure to the industry. If there are satisfactory voluntary arrangements, the cost of the arrangements will be met by the industry anyhow. If statutory arrangements are to continue, as I expect will be the case in a number of key sectors and where boards are working well, the operating costs over a period—I have stated that we shall consider the issue of timing at the appropriate stage—will be transferred to the industry.
I believe that that is right. Industry has an important part to play in training, and it is right that the main impetus for training, should come from industry and that the cost should be borne by industry and not by Government. We in the House are rapidly getting into a position in which we think that only Governments know how to spend money and that unless we are spending the money it is not being properly spent. In effect, if industry spends this money it will spend it more carefully, more critically and more wisely than we would.
A complaint made time and again by chairmen of training boards is that there is to much bureaucracy. Whenever Government money is spent, there are three or four channels to ensure that it is spent in a way that is accountable to Parliament. They say that when they want to improve the wages or salary of a board employee the proposal has to go to the Manpower Services Commission, to the Department of Employment and to the Civil Service Department, and that it takes years for the most simple changes to be made. All that makes me believe that it is right that the operating costs should be transferred.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend allow a degree of flexibility in the event that the consultations that need to be carried out on the raising of the levy in the engineering industry make it extremely difficult for the industry to be self-financing by 1 January 1982?

Mr. Prior: I have said that we must look at the whole question of transferring operating costs, and I have given an undertaking that, although I want the review to be carried out on the basis that operating costs will be transferred, I would look at the question of timing when the decision is made on whether boards should remain statutory or become voluntary.
At a time of economic recession it is important to keep our training at a high level. One great advance is the publication issued by the Manpower Services Commission, on which sit educationalists, employers and trade unionists. For the first time they have got together to prepare this new training initiative, which can revolutionise our training.
It is no use saying that we are short of apprenticeships. We are, but the important thing is to train people for the right jobs as efficiently as we can. That is why we have to move away from an apprenticeship based on a period of years to an apprenticeship based on a standard, making more use of modular methods. We are short of apprenticeships, and this is a considerable worry to the Government. We are subsidising 25,000 apprenticeships with £30 million of Government money this year, and we might have to allocate further resources to that in the near future.
The new training initiative, what we are doing for young people in trying to get better vocational preparation and trying to turn the youth opportunities programme into


a proper training system for all young people who would not otherwise get training are considerable advances. All that, together with the enabling power that the Bill gives to the Government, will produce a sensible structure of voluntary and statutory training boards and training arrangements. I believe that the House should give the Bill a Third Reading with acclamation.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 224.

Division No. 216]
[11.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Dykes, Hugh


Alexander, Richard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Eggar, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Elliott, Sir William


Arnold, Tom
Eyre, Reginald


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Farr, John


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Fell, Anthony


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Best, Keith
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Biggs-Davison, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Blackburn, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Blaker, Peter
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Body, Richard
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Peter


Bosoawen, Hon Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bowden, Andrew
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Glyn, Dr Alan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodhart, Philip


Bright, Graham
Goodlad, Alastair


Brittan, Leon
Gorst, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gow, Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Greenway, Harry


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grieve, Percy


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Buck, Antony
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Budgen, Nick
Grist, Ian


Bulmer, Esmond
Grylls, Michael


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hamilton, Hon A.


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hastings, Stephen


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hawksley, Warren


Chapman, Sydney
Hayhoe, Barney


Churchill, W. S.
Henderson, Barry


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cockeram, Eric
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Colvin, Michael
Hooson, Tom


Cope, John
Hordern, Peter


Corrie, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Costain, Sir Albert
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Crouch, David
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Dover, Denshore
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Durant, Tony
Kershaw, Anthony





Kimball, Marcus
Raison, Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Knox, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Lamont, Norman
Renton, Tim


Lang, Ian
Rhodes James, Robert


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lawrence, Ivan
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lee, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Le Merchant, Spencer
Rossi, Hugh


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rost, Peter


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Scott, Nicholas


Loveridge, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


McCrindle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, John
Shepherd, Richard


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shersby, Michael


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Silvester, Fred


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Skeet, T. H. H.


McQuarrie, Albert
Speed, Keith


Madel, David
Spence, John


Major, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marlow, Tony
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin


Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mather, Carol
Stanley, John


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Steen, Anthony


Mawby, Ray
Stevens, Martin


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, k.(E Renfrewshire)


Mayhew, Patrick
Stokes, John


Mellor, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Norman


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Monro, Hector
Thompson, Donald


Moore, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thornton, Malcolm


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mudd, David
Trippier, David


Murphy, Christopher
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Myles, David
Viggers, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Waddington, David


Needham, Richard
Wakeham, John


Nelson, Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Neubert, Michael
Walker, B. (Perth)


Newton, Tony
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Normanton, Tom
Wall, Patrick


Onslow, Cranley
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Ward, John


Osborn, John
Warren, Kenneth


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Wells, Bowen


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Wheeler, John


Parkinson, Cecil
Whitney, Raymond


Parris, Matthew
Wickenden, Keith


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wilkinson, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


Percival, Sir Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Pink, R. Bonner
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pollock, Alexander
Younger, Rt Hon George


Porter, Barry



Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prior, Rt Hon James
Lord J. Douglas-Hamilton and


Proctor, K. Harvey
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.


Pym, Rt Hon Francis







NOES


Abse, Leo
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Adams, Allen
English, Michael


Allaun, Frank
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Anderson, Donald
Evans, John (Newton)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ewing, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Field, Frank


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Fitch, Alan


Beith, A. J.
Flannery, Martin


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bidwell, Sydneiy
Ford, Ben


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Forrester, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Foster, Derek


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
George, Bruce


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Buchan, Norman
Ginsburg, David


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Golding, John


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Gourlay, Harry


Campbell, Ian
Graham, Ted


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, John (Islington C)


Cant, R. B.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cohen, Stanley
Haynes, Frank


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Conlan, Bernard
Heffer, Eric S.


Cook, Robin F.
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cowans, Harry
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Craigen, J. M.
Home Robertson, John


Crowther, J. S.
Homewood, William


Cryer, Bob
Hooley, Frank


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Dalyell, Tam
Huckfield, Les


Davidson, Arthur
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Deakins, Eric
Janner, Hon Greville


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Dempsey, James
John, Brynmor


Dewar, Donald
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Dixon, Donald
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Dobson, Frank
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Dormand, Jack
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Douglas, Dick
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dubs, Alfred
Kerr, Russell


Dunn, James A.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dunnett, Jack
Lambie, David


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Lamond, James


Eastham, Ken
Leighton, Ronald


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Lestor, Miss Joan





Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rooker, J. W.


Litherland, Robert
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Ryman, John


Lyons, Edward (Bradfd W)
Sheerman, Barry


McCartney, Hugh
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


McKelvey, William
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Silverman, Julius


Maclennan, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


McNally, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McNamara, Kevin
Snape, Peter


McTaggart, Robert
Soley, Clive


Magee, Bryan
Spearing, Nigel


Marks, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stallard, A. W.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, Rt Hon D, (W Isles)


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Stoddart, David


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stott, Roger


Maxton, John
Strang, Gavin


Maynard, Miss Joan
Straw, Jack


Meacher, Michael
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Tilley, John


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Torney, Tom


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Newens, Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Michael


O'Halloran, Michael
White, Frank R.


O'Neill, Martin
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Palmer, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Parker, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Parry, Robert
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Penhaligon, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Prescott, John
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Race, Reg
Winnick, David


Radice, Giles
Woodall, Alec


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Richardson, Jo
Young, David (Bolton E)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)



Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Robertson, George
Mr. George Morton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Education (Scotland) Bill

Order for Third Reading read read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—[Mr. Younger.]

The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 220.

Division No. 217]
[11.26 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Alexander, Richard
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Ancram, Michael
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Arnold, Tom
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkins, Robert (Presfon N)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fry, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Berry, Hon Anthony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Best, Keith
Goodhew, Victor


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gorst, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Gow, Ian


Blackburn, John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Blaker, Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, Harry



Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grieve, Percy


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Bowden, Andrew
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Grist, Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grylls, Michael


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Hon A.


Brittan, Leon
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hannam, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hastings, Stephen


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Buck, Antony
Hawksley, Warren


Budgen, Nick
Hayhoe, Barney


Bulmer, Esmond
Henderson, Barry


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hicks, Robert


Butcher, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cad bury, Jocelyn
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hooson, Tom


Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)
Hordern, Peter


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Churchill, W. S.
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Corrie, John
Kershaw, Anthony


Costain, Sir Albert
Kimball, Marcus


Cranborne, Viscount
King, Rt Hon Tom


Critchley, Julian
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Crouch, David
Knight, Mrs Jill


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Knox, David


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lamont, Norman


Dorrell, Stephen
Lang, Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Dover, Denshore
Latham, Michael


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lawrence, Ivan


Durant, Tony
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dykes, Hugh
Lee, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Le Marchant, Spencer


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Elliott, Sir William
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Loveridge, John


Farr, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Fell, Anthony
McCrindle, Robert





Macfarlane, Neil
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


MacGregor, John
Rossi, Hugh


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Rost, Peter


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Royle, Sir Anthony


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


McQuarrie, Albert
Scott, Nicholas


Madel, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Major, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Marland, Paul
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Marlow, Tony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shepherd, Richard


Mates, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Mather, Carol
Silvester, Fred


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Sims, Roger


Mawby, Ray
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Speed, Keith


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spence, John


Mayhew, Patrick
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Mellor, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sproat, Iain


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Squire, Robin


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miscampbell, Norman
Stanley, John


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Steen, Anthony


Moate, Roger
Stevens, Martin


Monro, Hector
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Moore, John
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stokes, John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mudd, David
Tapsell, Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Myles, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Neale, Gerrard
Tebbit, Norman


Needham, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Neubert, Michael
Thompson, Donald


Newton, Tony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Normanton, Tom
Thornton, Malcolm


Onslow, Cranley
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Trippier, David


Osborn, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Viggers, Peter


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Waddington, David


Parkinson, Cecil
Wakeham, John


Parris, Matthew
Waldegrave, Hon William


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wall, Patrick


Pattie, Geoffrey
Waller, Gary


Percival, Sir Ian
Ward, John


Pollock, Alexander
Warren, Kenneth


Porter, Barry
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Wells, Bowen


Prior, Rt Hon James
Wheeler, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Whitney, Raymond


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wickenden, Keith


Raison, Timothy
Wilkinson, John


Rathbone, Tim
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhodes James, Robert
Younger, Rt Hon George


Ridley, Hon Nicholas



Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Booth, Rt Hon Albert


Adams, Allen
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Allaun, Frank
Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Buchan, Norman


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)


Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, Ian






Campbell-Savours, Dale
Graham, Ted


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Cant, R. B.
Grant, John (Islington C)


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cohen, Stanley
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Coleman, Donald
Haynes, Frank


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Conlan, Bernard
Heffer, Eric S.


Cook, Robin F
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cowans, Harry
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Craigen, J. M.
Home Robertson, John


Crowther, J. S.
Homewood, William


Cryer, Bob
Hooley, Frank


Cunliffe, Lawrance
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Dalyell, Tam
Huckfield, Les


Davidson, Arthur
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Deakins, Eric
Janner, Hon Greville


Dempsey, James
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Dewar, Donald
John, Brynmor


Dixon, Donald
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Dobson, Frank
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Dormand, Jack
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Douglas, Dick
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Dubs, Alfred
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Russell


Dunnett, Jack
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Lambie, David


Eastham, Ken
Lamond, James


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Leighton, Ronald


English, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Evans, John (Newton)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Ewing, Harry
Litherland, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Field, Frank
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Fitch, Alan
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Flannery, Martin
McCartney, Hugh


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank


Forrester, John
McKelvey, William


Foster, Derek
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Foulkes, George
Maclennan, Robert


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
McNally, Thomas


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McNamara, Kevin


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McTaggart, Robert


George, Bruce
Magee, Bryan


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marks, Kenneth


Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Golding, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)





Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Maxton, John
Silverman, Julius


Maynard, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Snape, Peter


Mikardo, Ian
Soley, Clive


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Spriggs, Leslie


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Stallard, A. W.


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Stoddart, David


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Strang, Gavin


Morton, George
Straw, Jack


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Newens, Stanley
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


O'Neill, Martin
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tilley, John


Palmer, Arthur
Torney, Tom


Parker, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Parry, Robert
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Pendry, Tom
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Penhaligon, David
Weetch, Ken


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Welsh, Michael


Prescott, John
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Race, Reg
Whitehead, Phillip


Radice, Giles
Whitlock, William


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Richardson, Jo
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Robertson, George
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Winnick, David


Rooker, J. W.
Woodall, Alec


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ryman, John



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Noes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Mr. Frank R. White and


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Joseph Dean

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

SHEEP VARIABLE PREMIUM (PROTECTION OF PAYMENTS)

Resolved,
That the Sheep Variable Premium (Protection of Payments) (Amendment) Order 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 751), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 May, be approved.—[Mr. Buchannan-Smith.]

Multi-Fibre Arrangement

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. John Farr: I wish to discuss the new multi-fibre arrangement, known as MFA III. The matter was raised in the House last week during questions to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and during business questions.
A number of hon. Members pressed, particularly during businees questions on Thurday, for a full day's debate on the important negotiations on the renewal of the MFA that are about to begin, when the present arrangement MFA II, expires.
A good deal of concern was expressed on Monday and on Thursday. Frankly, I do not think that it is possible, in the limited time available until about 12.10 am when the House will adjourn, for us to do justice to this subject.
I am glad to see that there are one or two hon. Members on both sides who may wish to speak before the Minister replies to the points that I shall make. It is of massive importance, in the view of all of us who are interested in the subject, and who have been fairly active in that respect in the past, that before EEC Ministers meet on 23 June, our Minister has the advantage of securing the knowledge of what hon. Members want.
We do not say that our Minister, able though he is, can perform miracles. However, we believe that we have a right to ask that before that critical round of negotiations begins, with the meeting of European Ministers on 23 June, when an EEC stance will be crystallised, the Minister should have the benefit of the information and of the views of people who are close to the multi-fibre arrangement and all its implications.
Therefore, tonight I can do no more than say that this is not the vehicle for a long debate. There is no time for that. A number of my colleagues wish to say a word or two. I hope that the Minister will apply his well-known expertise and pressure to make sure that we secure a major debate on the Floor of the House so that he knows what we want before 23 June.
A number of matters deeply concern Members of Parliament with textile interests. We are desperately worried about the continual erosion of the numbers employed and about the continued increase in imports from low-cost countries. However, tonight I feel that I should say no more than to invite my colleagues on both sides of the House to join in the debate briefly and, I hope, forcefully, and support my sincere and urgent plea that the Minister should secure for us a full debate before 23 June so that we may say what we want.

Mr. William Whitlock: I support the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) in the plea which he has made.
The multi-fibre arrangement was originally seen as a means of sharing out the misery among developed countries of importing from underdeveloped countries. As we have borne an unfair share of that burden in the past, the MFA promised a better deal for Britain. That has not come about because other countries have not strictly adhered to the terms of the MFA. They do not allow penetration of their markets in the way that it is done here. The international rules are being bent in many ways.
The MFA must be renegotiated in a way which brings justice to Britain. There must be no pussy-footing around the problem by Ministers. They have expressed their resolve to obtain justice for Britain. They must maintain that resolve. There must be no slackening in it.
As the hon. Member for Harborough said, we must quickly have a full-scale debate on the matter so that hon. Members can bolster Ministers in their resolve. Therefore, in international negotiations the Ministers will be able to say what is the feeling which has been expressed by both sides of the House and which exists in the industry up and down the country.
I believe that other hon. Members will make the same point. I hope that the Minister will tell us that there will soon be a debate.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on his initiative in applying for an Adjournment debate on the subject and being successful in getting one.
I want to add my support to my hon. Friend's call for an early debate on a vital issue. About 600,000 people are employed in the textile and clothing industries. The two industries employ many more people than the steel, iron and coal industries put together. The House and the Government spend time and money on those industries. The work force, management and employers in the textile industry equally deserve attention, so I fully support the call for a full debate on the renegotiation of the MFA before the Council of Ministers meets a little later this month.
Let me give the Minister one or two statistics to take to the meeting. In 1970, man-made fibre production employed 41,000 people. The provisional figure for June 1980 is 25,300. Comparable figures for the cotton and linen industry are 175,000, dropping to 68,800. Huge reductions have taken place in the textile industry. We have had rationalisation. All the organisations involved with the industry believe that hon. Members representing textile areas should have an opportunity to acquaint Ministers renegotiating the MFA of how strongly the House feels.
Sadly, many people among the management, employers and work force believe that the Government and the European Commission are likely to take a less tough stand on imports than had been hoped. They feel that their stand may be weaker than when the MFA was last negotiated. I hope that that is not so. Many hon. Members believe that the present system of global ceilings for sensitive products must be strengthened and not weakened. There must be no thought of abolishing the ceiling for any category of product. There must be no exclusion from the ceiling of any country at present covered.
Consistently through the life of this MFA we have argued that growth rates within the agreement should be restricted to the expected growth in the market. Similarly, many of us with textile interests have argued that there should be a clause permitting a reduction in access to our market when there is a decline in consumption—that is, a recession clause.
I know how strongly the Minister feels about the subject. I know of the calls that he has made on the textile industry up and down the country and the contact that he has with trade organisations, individual employers and


trade unions. I sincerely beg him to take up the case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and to press the Government to find time to debate a subject that is vital to 600,000 people, because, if that is not important, what is?

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on securing the Adjournment debate. I thank him for his generosity in giving way to other hon. Members. It is a well attended Adjournment debate, and shows the strong feeling about this important matter.
I am part of the West Yorkshire interest in the wool textile and clothing industry. The matter concerns not only Yorkshire, Lancashire, Nottingham, the East Midlands, Scotland, the West Country and the clothing industries of London but a large number of other constituencies. The industry has lost over 160,000 jobs in the past two years. I do not pretend that the problem has arisen only in that period. A major series of industries is being eroded.
This is not the occasion to go into the many ramifications of the important trading agreement, which strikes at the heart of many communities in Britain. I am sure that hon. Members in the House tonight will agree with me that the proper time to discuss this would be in a full debate so that the whole House might express its views on industries and trade agreements which affect so many communities in this country. Whatever the precedents, it would be quite wrong on this occasion for the House not to have the opportunity to express its views on all aspects of this trade agreement before the European Commission and the European Ministers come to their view on the negotiating position.
I hope that this evening has provided the opportunity for the Minister of State to see the strength of feeling on both sides of the House. On many occasions in the past, he has shown that he is willing to listen. I hope that he will be able to reflect that again tonight and give us an assurance that the debate for which we all so earnestly wish will take place.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I, too, am grateful to my hon Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for securing this Adjournment debate. It is crucial that the views of the House should be known. The views of the European Parliament have been made plain on many occasions, but the views of the House have not been properly expressed. My hon. Friend referred to the growth recession clause. We have had assurances from various Ministers on that, but unless we back it up right to the last minute we feel that we may lose on points such as that. We mentioned this, for example, in a booklet called "Textiles in the '80s" which some colleagues and I drew up precisely to draw the Minister's attention to the items that we thought should be included in the multi-fibre arrangement for which negotiations commence in October.
The House must have the opportunity to strengthen the Minister's hand in the coming negotiations. I therefore beg him to persuade the Leader of the House to give us a full day's debate on this matter.

Mr. Ben Ford: I merely add my voice to those of my colleagues on both sides of the House.

This is being pursued as an all-party matter. We seek no political advantage on either side, except to achieve security of employment for those who remain in the textile industry, in the cotton, wool, hosiery and other sectors. We are aware that Ministers bear a heavy responsibility for securing the negotiating mandate for the multi-fibre arrangement when they meet on 23 June.
I therefore add my voice to those who have requested a full-scale parliamentary debate before 23 June so that Ministers may understand the depth of feeling in the House reflected from the constituencies that we represent in order that democracy may be served.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: My constituency has been devastated by closures of mills never to open again, while others are rapidly slimming down to try to survive. Like other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I hope that we can have a full-scale debate to save the remaining mills and to strengthen the industry, which is bigger than the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board put together. We must have a full-scale debate so that, when our Ministers go to Europe to renegotiate the MFA, people there will know that we really mean business, that we are fighting to save our industry and that all parts of the House in the United Kingdom are united in that aim.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: It is pleasing to witness the rare occasions when hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber share a concern. Politics apart, we share a concern about those whom we represent. As a Member for Leeds, which has always been noted as a clothing industry area, I express my concern about the number of jobs that have been lost in the Leeds area in the clothing industry and in the West Riding in the textile industry. When my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) and I had the opportunity to visit Taiwan, he quoted a figure that I shall repeat tonight. He said that 2,000 jobs per month were being lost in the textile industry in this country. There is, therefore, cause for grave concern in all parts of the House among Members like ourselves who represent the areas in which those job losses are occurring.
In view of what has been said from all parts of the Chamber, I hope that the Minister and the Leader of the House will give us the opportunity of having a full-scale debate about the problem and the effect that it is having not only in Yorkshire and Lancashire but throughout the country generally, so that we may come to some sort of arrangement before the negotiations take place.

Mr. D. A. Trippier: Since the Minister of State has held office in the Government he has been under considerable pressure from hon. Members in all parts of the House who represent textile constituencies. He has responded to that pressure on many occasions and I have no doubt that he will respond to the pressure this evening, and to the pressure that will be put on him in a future textile debate, which I hope will be before the discussions are held within the European Community.
It is very important to convey to the European Community the sort of pressure that the Minister is under. I would have thought that it would be of great advantage to him in his negotiating stance that he should convey the


strength of feeling which exists among Members of Parliament who represent the textile constituencies. There would be nothing worse than for him to go to the negotiating chamber without having had a debate behind him, and without an opportunity having been given to Members of Parliament to strengthen his arm. That is all we are seeking to do tonight, and we hope that our application to him will meet with a favourable response.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The message from the Wool Textile Action Group, which met on Friday 22 May at Wakefield, on behalf of the woollen industry—and I know that this feeling was duplicated in the cotton textile industry, the knitting industry and the clothing industry—was that there is serious concern about the MFA, and that there needs to be a discussion about it in the House of Commons.
People outside look to the House of Commons to air their views. It is not sufficient for the Government to say "Leave it to the Opposition Supply day." This is an important matter, because it is the Government mandate that will be negotiated during the MFA renewal. Therefore, it seems to me a legitimate claim by both sides of the House that the Government should give time and that they should elaborate, in part or in whole, their view of what the mandate should be, so that we by our expression of strength of opinion can strengthen their view, to ensure that a sufficiently adequate MFA—including the recession clause—is negotiated.
We have to ensure that the jobs of over 600,000 people are retained and may be developed and improved. The view of the trade unions and the employers' side at the meeting in May to which I referred was not one of hope. It is incumbent on Parliament and the Government to set down a debate so that some hope and renewed confidence can be given to the industry.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): Tonight has been a unique exercise mounted by a body of hon. Members. Ten Members have spoken in 19 minutes, which gives the lie to the notion that Members of Parliament are not capable of making short speeches. What has come out clearly from all the speeches is a very strongly held view that Parliament must have a say about the renegotiation of the MFA, and that the way that Parliament would like to have that say is by mounting a full-scale debate on the subject.
The Department of Trade would welcome such a debate. It is clear that hon. Members in all parts of the House want it. I shall ensure that this very strong feeling, of which the Government are already aware, is conveyed to the Leader of the House. As hon. Members know, what we debate is a matter for him and not for me. The message of the House is clear and unmistakable. I am sure that the Leader of the House will take note of it. I give hon. Members an undertaking that I shall report to him on the speches that I have heard.
By this "exercise", hon. Members have demonstrated that they have ways of getting their message through to the Government. I did not need to be reminded of that. I have spoken to and have been available to any hon. Member from a textile constituency who has wished to see me. I

have seen deputations from the industry, from the trade unions, from management and from Members of Parliament. I remain open at all times to approaches from colleagues and from the industry. The Government recognise the big problems that face the industry. In the few minutes available I should like to emphasise the Government's commitment to the industry, to discuss the way in which the process of renegotiation will get under way and to deal with the Government's general line of approach.
I turn to the Government's commitment to the industry. I do not want to cite masses of boring statistics. As hon. Members know, on behalf of the Government I administer 570 quotas with 42 low-cost suppliers from all over the world. I have added to that number of quotas at the rate of about one every two weeks since the Conservative Party has been in power. We have negotiated agreements with the Mediterranean suppliers with whom we did not have agreements and we have taken a tough line with the State traders. We have embarked on a process of obtaining proper transitional arrangements for Spain and Portugal, when they become members of the EEC.
On a daily basis, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to the textile industry. Again I emphasise the Government's awareness of the industry's importance as an employer, as the supplier still, in value, of about 70 per cent. of all the textiles and clothing purchased in Britain and as the exporter of over £2,170 million worth of goods last year. Therefore, as has been said, it is a huge and important industry and the Government are acutely aware of that. The arrangements under the present MFA are, on the whole, working as originally envisaged. However, the market is not the market that it should have been. It is not the market for which the present arrangements were designed.
I turn to the process of renegotiation. As hon. Members know, we are consulting widely at home. Hon. Members, representatives of all sections of the industry, individual employers and trade unions are making their views known to us. The Government are setting up a working group with the industry, which will function throughout the renegotiations. In that way the Government and the industry will know what the other one is up to and will be in continuous contact. Within the EEC the tempo is building up. At a steadily escalating official level there have been discussions. As hon. Members know, on 23 June the first ministerial discussions will take place.
I expect those discussions to be general. The newly elected French Government are unlikely to have a finally formed view. That will be the first exchange of views at ministerial level. On 23 June we shall not settle the Community's mandate once and for all. We shall be probing each other's minds. That process has already begun. I have met ministerial colleagues from all parts of the Community in recent months. We have been exchanging views about the sort of renegotiation we would like. We have been testing each other's ideas on each other.
Recently I was in the United States, where I had discussions with Senator Brock. Senator Brock has subsequently been here. The United States is beginning to develop its ideas. Thus, 23 June is an important occasion because it will be the occasion of the first formal ministerial exchange of views. It will not be the last occasion, and the final definitive negotiating mandate will be evolved over a period beginning with 23 June.
In addition to the negotiations and discussions within the Community, the preliminary discussions on negotiations have begun in the GATT textiles committee. One of the things which emerged, which was a surprise, was that there was a general agreement between supplier and recipient countries of the need to have a renewal of the MFA. That might have been contentious, but it is accepted on all sides that the MFA must be renewed. The build-up to the negotiations has begun and hon. Members are correct to say that Parliament must have a say. I hope that hon. Members will accept that they have been entitled to have a say, have had access to the Government on a continuing basis in the past few months and will continue to have such access. If we have a debate, that will not be the final opportunity for hon. Members. My door remains open to hon. Members who wish to consult or to express a view during the negotiations.
I summarise briefly some of our objectives in the renegotiation. The Prime Minister has said that she expects the Ministers in her Government to negotiate a tough and effective successor the the MFA. She has made that clear

to us all, to the public and industry. I do not want to go into great detail, but shall touch on a few of the major subjects.
We accept that the arguments for a recession clause are strong. We have said so on a number of occasions. My reasoning for that is that it seems that if one enters into an arrangement on the basis of a set of assumptions, which turn out to be false, there should be a mechanism for adjusting the arrangement to the facts and not to the imagined facts. The Government are strongly committed to that. It will not be easy to negotiate. There is resistance to it. I have tried the idea on a number of people. I told the industry that if it wants to help us it must get its colleagues in industries in other Community countries and in countries outside the Community to see the necessity for the clause. We accept that there is a strong case for it. We also accept that there is a need to look at growth rates—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.